though I'm highly critical of much of the Web3 space it is undeniable that there's a lot of innovative ideas circling round. And projects more often do 'productization' better (if only to package a scam).

Buzzword-o-meter on Perspect3vism site is way up the scale but ideas are interesting.

I'd like to see stuff like https://fluxsocial.io/ but for #Fediverse #ActivityPub. Especially visions going 'beyond apps' to composable personal experiences have appeal. Dunno if we ever get there.

Note that AD4M is unlicensed, so technically proprietary, and bot Perspect3vism and Flux are under "Cryptographic Autonomy License version 1.0" license (first time I heard about it).

Anyway an interesting find @strypey

In follow-up to some recent discussion on shared vision for the future of the #Fediverse I have added an additional comment to the thread:

https://discuss.coding.social/t/question-does-having-a-technology-vision-help-adoption/45/4

The rationale for the Cryptographic Autonomy License is explained here by Art Brock:
https://blog.holochain.org/understanding-the-cryptographic-autonomy-license/

It's approved by OSI as an open source license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/CAL-1.

... although I remember there being some major controversy about during the vetting process:
https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/03/osi_cofounder_resigns/

Not sure what the FSF folks make of it, it's not yet listed on the gnu.org licenses page.

I'm not yet sure what to make of the CAL 1.0. Bruce Perens talked about it alongside the Shared Source license (SSPL). But SSPL is clearly not a open source license by the OSI definition, whereas CAL is an edge case. The goal of SSPL advocates is to protect themselves from predatory competitors. Whereas CAL is about protecting users from predatory use of Holochain as a hosting infrastructure, which is more in the spirit of software freedom.

#SoftwareFreedom #CAL #SSPL

@alcinnz

I remember at the time that Mongo and later Elastic were relicensing, there were huge heated discussions on Hacker News. Specifically on the SSPL on its own there haven't been large discussions.

Stretching my memory here, but wasn't SSPL a generic version of MongoDB's vanity license that was proposed to OSI? If so, it would have been discussed on the OSI mailing list.

@alcinnz

Yes, it was Mongo's variation to their previous licensing to the AGPL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License

Here's the OSI statement on SSPL, describing it as #fauxpen:
https://opensource.org/node/1099

@alcinnz