Fediverse
Welcome!
Can you imagine, years ago how the internet was before? We know Facebook, Twitter, Tiktok, Youtube. We knew blogger, Tumblr, Skyrock... and long before, it was the forum era as phpBB..and mail-lists.
And now with ActivityPub, we are reshaping the web, and achieving much more with lots of freedom. So thank you all, and welcome π€π
Our threads
- [Monthly thread] What fediverse feature/UI do you enjoy the most?
- [Weekly thread] Let's explore the fediverse ! π€
Wiki
- How to present the threadiverse to redditors (rewritting)
- PieFed overview
- [Mbin overview]
Resources
Related communities
- !newcomers@piefed.zip Are you new on the threadiverse ? Come and say hello :3
- !newcommunities@lemmy.word for discovering the latest communities :)
- !testfediverse@jlai.lu (for testing on lemmy)
- !playground@piefed.social (for testing on PieFed)
- !communitypromo@lemmy.ca
- !fedigrow@lemmy.zip
If you want to donate, double check on the official website and report any problem to mod team
Social network
Threadiverse
- Flarum | git | donation
- Friendica | git
- Lemmy | git | donate
- Mbin | git
- NodeBB | git
- PieFed | git | donate
Selfhosting on Mobile
Holos | git | donate
FediBlog
- Wafrn | git | donation
- Wordpress
- WriteFreely | git | donate
Microblog
Event
Mediaverse
Audio
Streaming/live
Book
Culture review
Picture
Podcast
Short-video
Video
FediMarket
- FlohMarkt | git | donation
Image Credits :
Avatar : Wikipedia Eukombos
Banner : David Revoy licence : CC-BY-4.0
Rules
Moderation process
We all make mistakes,
If your comment is reported, and brings up a complex issue, we will reach out to you and ask you to rephrase it.
Our goal, is to create a serene space for discussion. Nothing more.
If the post isn't edited to remove hurtful language element, we will have to remove it. It would be a shame because your comment was interesting and you took some time to write it.
In case of xenophobia, racism, transphobia, homophobia or harassment, it will be a permanent ban.
- Remember the human: no insults, no aggression, no harassment between users. π«
- Xenophobia, racism, transphobia and other forms of discrimination are forbidden.π
- No duplication. No spam. Avoid paywalls if possible or do a little summary.β
- Use the "Report" function to report content that contravenes the rules.π΄
- Content must be related to Fediverse.
- This is not a place to re-litigate and perpetuate fedi-conflict. Take it to dedicated communities. Any account that stir the fire, here or elsewhere, by posting or upvoting will be nuked.
view the rest of the comments
The only missing part was the copyright from the original project, or some kind of attribution. But you're always free to steal code from an open-source project if you both have the same license.
Yeah this is ridiculous. Neither project has copyright notices in preamble comments at the top of files, or an AUTHORS.txt, or any other kind of copyright notice. Therefore there is no copyright notice to preserve as stipulated by the AGPL. While it's best practice to preserve Git authorship by using properly formatted patch files (like he did for the first commit), this isn't technically required.
It's also debatable whether the stylesheets copied here are even substantial enough works to qualify for copyright to begin with, but that's another discussion.
The Piefed author should merge all that code right back in, but use
git format-patchfor both commits so Git authorship is preserved. If the fork fellas don't like that, they should shutter their fork and go fork a project with a more permissive license that allows them to relicense to closed source.Instead of doing that, I'd just fetch their commits and merge them directly. That has the added benefit of not generating new commits with new hashes (making it easier on the fork's side). If the original commits were signed, it would also preserve those signatures.
Agreed on this part though. Although the license, under section 5, states βa) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.β One could maybe argue this wasn't done for the second change, but if that were to be merged in properly with git attribution intact (which also includes timestamps), that should also be fine.
This is definitely in line with the free software philosophy. It should be possible to include others' improvements to your project, if you've already got their modified source code. And βstealingβ code is not even a thing (it's copyright infringement at worst, never theft).
In this case there was no modification as the code was copied verbatim.
True, I didn't consider that (though there may have been modifications made after the code was copied?). In that case, section 4 would apply, which only requires keeping notices intact, and there aren't any as you said.
It does have this clause:
A bit unsure in how that should be taken in this case. There weren't any notices in the fork, and the copyright information is otherwise the same (the
LICENSEfile). This could also be taken to mean attribution, maybe (since most copyright notices include the author's name), in which case git author info would've probably been enough too.Yeah that's kind of the point of having open source projects after all :)