[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Social-discuss] Future of GNU social

From: Melvin Carvalho
Subject: Re: [Social-discuss] Future of GNU social
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 20:20:50 +0200

2010/5/28 Rob Myers <address@hidden>
On 05/28/2010 05:11 PM, Ted Smith wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:51 -0400, Matt Lee wrote:
Due to maturity of the codebase, myself and the other contributors have
decided to build GNU social alongside StatusNet, and additionally, we
recommend OStatus as the basis for the distributed social networking
protocol we intend to champion.

I thought this had been discussed (and rejected) in the past - as far
back as the mailing list. What's changed since then in terms
of the StatusNet protocol serving as the basis for the GNU Social

No other protocol has the same mixture of maturity (as you point out), large existing deployment base, and FSF-assigned code.

RDF?  Over a decade of collaboration, specs, libraries, tools etc.  Deployment across Government (US+UK), Facebook, IMDB, Google, Yahoo, MySpace, NASA etc. etc.  Bullet proof royalty free licensing, rather than patent, non attribution.

For the record, I'm not opposed to the OStatus choice, but I do feel it slightly inaccurate to say there was nothing else comparable out there.

What of all the other discussion on this list regarding other protocols?

They have been very useful and can help to improve OStatus and any Social additions to it.

Personally, it is still my opinion that a higher-level protocol,
speaking in terms of abstract concepts, and implemented over several
other protocols, including OStatus and everything else, as transports,
would be best for this GNU World we're building, and I don't understand
why OStatus alone is being singled out now. The StatusNet codebase has
been mature as long as this project has been alive.

OStatus is being singled out now because it has become possible to do so and because it has momentum from the great work StatusNet have done.

We have something concrete to work with, build on, and evaluate.

And if people want something more abstract, we have something to abstract from.

- Rob.

reply via email to

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