[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Michael McMahon
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:26:49 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/102.13.0

I didn't look into it that much, but what you said about licensing sounds right if true.

Software freedom is foundational. Freedom is dependent on having the ability to use free software. The message gets very muddy when people mistake the FSF for the Free Speech Foundation or any other sort of freedom not included in the four software freedoms.

I'm not interested in at all and will not promote any social media platform that would be categorized as a free speech zone. I would recommend several free software platforms in the fediverse which we already do.

Michael McMahon | Web Developer, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 4337 2794 C8AD D5CA 8FCF  FA6C D037 59DA B600 E3C0

On 9/21/23 13:55, Valentino Giudice wrote:
 >  Minds could be categorized as a "free speech zone" social network which
 > are typically popular with fascists so count me out.

Fascism and freedom of speech are entirely incompatible and antithetical to each other. It could be true that fascist today use free speech platforms, but it is certainly not what they desire.

From reading from the FSF/GNU websites, it has always been my impression that freedom of speech is valued by the free software community, in a way it certainly is not by fascists. Indeed, filtering what one reads and publicly writes through the erratic whims of some corporation, typically guided by capitalist interests and the need to applease advertisers, as it usually happens on most platforms (such as X and Facebooks), implies restricting one's behavior in a way akin to what proprietary software leads to.

 > The licensing of the minds project is also questionable.

Elgg dual-licenses the project, except plugins, under both the MIT license and the GPL 2. Obviously, if someone uses the whole of Elgg, they effectively have to use it under the GPL 2.

Now, I agree with the GitHub comment, on the Elgg issue, that you referenced. Indeed, if Elgg is packaged with GPL-2.0 only plugins, it must have the GPL-2.0-only license (as a package). However, the issue is specifically about the identifier of the license for the whole package (for automated tools), which is not what is in question here.

If someone uses Ellg without plugins, they can do so under the MIT license, which is, of course, AGPL-compatible.

The project which is actually derived from Elgg is: <>

Indeed, the situation wasn't clear to me at first, so I asked.
Minds is using the portion of Elgg which is released under the MIT license and is complying with the MIT license (in a way my dumb self didn't notice because I looked everywhere except the LICENSE file, which I assumed to be just the text of the AGPL): <>

I do have some issues with Minds, but as far as licensing is concerned, in relation to Elgg, it seems fine with me.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]