Replies

What does this mean, as though explaining to an eight year old?

There is a software platform that is published under a software license that requires those who use it to disclose their modifications so that they can be adopted and brought back into the platform's core offering.

Consider "Mastodon" is like FR, in sum & total. If JR was licensing he could license it to someone to use under the license that "Mastodon" was published it under and anyone using it would then be obligated to publish any changes they make to get it to work in the way they wanted.

The considered changes would involve making it behave & appear differently or to address bugs in the core offering - the latter being the true rationale for these kinds of restrictive licensing. Oftentimes companies will preclude developers from even using "off the shelf" components that have such restrictive licensing because of the potential exposure they bring.

From what I've read and this "article" suggests, the "Truth" platform is not much other than Mastodon, so much so that it was immediately apparent to people who took screenshots that's what it was.

Let's say Betty Crocker offered an "open source" version of their muffins under such licensing scheme ... you add an extra pinch of something in your making of it. You'd have to disclose that. But suppose you include the muffins in a whole meal ... there's nothing there. Maybe you added some orange die for Halloween ... so now you're obligated to reveal ... you added an extra pinch of salt and died them orange to reach these special muffins! BIG DEAL! ROFL

In a proper architecture, the platform would be used as a core part of any offering with pieces alongside or underneath to make things function differently. Again, unless the Mastodon platform is so weak that it requires rebuilding to get it to work and they're demanding to know how it was rebuilt ... that might yield "something" ... but that something is of limited import and minimal value.

IMO ;)

WWG1WGA :)

The source code runs the platform, the lifeblood of the platform, without it no platform. So if true, it is not proprietary and Trump’s Truth Social et al must make source code public per the use license.

What Steve W. said....