• teri@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately it’s still possible to rewrite a VC-backed clone and start making incompatible changes. Think about Facebook’s “threads.net”. They sure did not take Lemmy source code.

    • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Threads isn’t a Lemmy server, it’s a proprietary platform that happens to “speak” ActivityPub.

      • teri@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah sorry, confused things. It’s comes closer to a Mastodon thing. The point is that a big corporation like Facebook does not need to use AGPL code as long as they can just re-implement it. Compared to the total codebase used at Facebook, re-implementing something like lemmy or mastodon does not sound like a big deal. (That’s not an argument against using the AGPL)

    • pimeys@lemmy.nauk.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      You just have to be very careful to not have your developers to get even close to the AGPL source code, because if it’s similar, there’s a possibility the judge says you copied the AGPL code and now your license is AGPL too. There’s a reason companies are really scared about everything related to the license…

      But yes, this happens and you have to have resources to fight it. Which is not easy.

      • Square Singer@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sadly, the more realistic option is that the judge dismisses the complaint because they don’t understand open source.

        Happens sadly quite often.

        Or it never encounters a judge because the author of the open source project doesn’t have the money to fight a megacorp in a court.