Re: [Social] More internal use of ActivityStreams?

[hellekin (GNU Consensus)]

On 01/02/2013 01:24 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> 
> activity streams projects seem to be dying.  Case in point status.net
> <http://status.net> is shutting down to new users. 
>
*** Melvin, the successor of StatusNet, pump.io, is defined as a "Social
server with an ActivityStreams API".

> 
>     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.
>
*** This might help:

There are legal precedents when the reverse-engineering is aimed at
interoperability of protocols. In the United States, the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act grants a safe harbor to reverse engineer
software for the purposes of interoperability with other software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_protocol#Reverse_engineering

> Do you think you could persuade activity streams to come under a non
> proprietary license?
>
*** That would be an interesting move.

>     If so, how far into the future is that? And would it be easier to
>     migrate from GNU Social's current homebrew structure - or something
>     properly specified like ActivityStreams?
> 
> Its happening already.  Just join the fun!
>
*** It is one of the purposes of the GNU/consensus project to specify an
implementation-agnostic social object layer for free software projects
to interoperate. This is a public debate, and you're invited to chime in.

==
hk

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature