So Gab has decided that their own code that they spent $5M of investor money developing is so unsalvageably bad that they're going to use Mastodon's code instead, with the added bonus of leeching off of our apps (with Gab apps being banned from app stores)

This is an early warning to fellow admins to be vigilant and domain-block them on sight, when/if they appear (unconfirmed whether they intend to federate), and to app devs to consider if blocking Gab's domains from their app is necessary.


@Gargron wonder how feasible it is to have a LICENSE that explicitly forbids it for being used for hate

· · Web · 7 · 2 · 5

@Gargron @j @LuigiEsq Licenses with ethical/morality clauses are very hard to enforce, due in part to issues with legal definition and interpretation (esp. across jurisdictions). JSON license "do no evil" clause is the most prominent example, but there are others.

Licenses will not help resolve this problem, which must be solved by the mechanisms most Mastodon instances (and,, and Mastodon client apps) are now using... 1/2

@Gargron @j @LuigiEsq Moderation, instance blocks, ToS, and policies (Server Covenant etc.) are effective, and will need to be done anyway.

Enforcement of copyleft license terms (GPL, AGPL, CC BY-SA etc.) is already extremely hard and requires money and legal resources.

License proliferation (e.g. not choosing AGPL for Mastodon) only causes friction for FOSS collaboration. It hurts devs and makes a mess that is difficult to clean up... which will only harm the Fediverse and limit use. 2/2

@diggity @j @LuigiEsq I agree in the sense that if someone violates AGPLv3 there are multiple established institutions willing to defend it which a custom license does not benefit from

I think I've also mentioned elsewhere in the thread that re-licensing Mastodon is practically very hard due to no CLA and about 600 contributors

@Gargron @j @LuigiEsq Yep. I got to this thread late but we're all in agreement.

I just *really* would hate to see a new license for Mastodon, it has been very successful under AGPL and will continue to be.

Historically, Gab will be a blip on the Mastodon radar... they may not even make the codebase switch. The devs are obviously sloppy AF and now that client apps like Tusky, Sengi etc will block their instance (rickrolling too!), Masto won't solve the primary problem Gab thought it would.

@j @Gargron freedom zero

you cant enforce that in a licence
@wowaname @j @Gargron @wowaname it is, in general, a bad idea. but then agian, it's not an explicit violation of the GNU GPL to block access to the update servers and github et al. if they want the code, they have to get it themselves, neither you nor I have to help them beyond the letter of the software licence
@DJWalnut @j @Gargron expending additional effort to forbid certain people from obtaining the software is on the line of consciously denying their right to the software. not to mention it's a waste of time

@j @Gargron That would be a nonfree license. You can't restrict how people use your software or that would not be "open source" or free software. It would become proprietary software instead.


Completely feasible, and easy. Just insert the (completely subjective) line...

But it wouldn't be a free license as per #RMS, the #OSI, or the #FSF:

#tallship #FOSS #OpenSource

@Gargron @OpenSource @chucknorrisfacts @starwall


Sign in to participate in the conversation

Switter, a sex work-friendly social space. Check out, our verified escort directory. Looking for listings? Visit Switter Listings Looking for Backpage alternatives?