On 2 January 2013 18:30, Mikael Nordfeldth
<address@hidden> wrote:
On ons 2 jan 2013 17:24:27, Melvin Carvalho <
address@hidden> wrote:
> OK, I would suggest you're in a minority there.
If you make efforts to interoperate, you will be less lonely. It means writing code, if you're ready, there's other people out there that are too.
Other than that, Pump.io uses activitystreams in json. Friendica of course has the OStatus implementation with Activities in Atom just like StatusNet. And it's pretty much semantically identical to Facebook's timelines/feeds.
So. Running code.
Yeah this is a blip compared to linked data. It's a blip even compared to facebook, or open graph protocol. You've not explained why you favour this. Friendica is a project I like, but they left the "federated social web", one of the reasons was ostatus evangelism.
It's not semantically equivalent to linked data, such as open graph, it's lossy in the same way that PNG -> JPEG is lossy. Not all binary formats are equal. Serializations take a lot of thought. Why not use something like JSON-LD?
> > APIs and similar specs are AFAIK not subject to copyrights or patents,
> > following the result of lawsuits like Oracle vs. Google on the Dalvik
> > engine.
> >
>
> I would like to understand this more. Do you have a pointer.
"In May 2012 the jury in this case found that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents, and the trial judge ruled that the structure of the Java APIs used by Google was not copyrightable."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)#Licensing_and_patents
Implementing the contents of ActivityStreams is reasonably even less of an infringement. Either way I don't think lawyers should restrict the federated social web.
Thanks, I will look into this. Tho I really do prefer not to have to worry about lawyers at all. Why not use creative commons protocols, or those under known standards bodies? This was the advice given to GNU Social when they met with timbl 1-2 years ago. What's holding things back?
> Do you think you could persuade activity streams to come under a non
> proprietary license?
I thought the Open Web Foundation agreement meant developers in general can use the specification. If there are any restrictions that cause trouble for a free software project it would be good if you could specify them.