This may interest anyone who wants all the things to work together.
ad4m.dev documents:
"* A new meta-ontology for interoperable, decentralized application design
* A spanning-layer to enable seamless integration between Holochain DNAs, blockchains, linked-data structures/ontologies and centralized back-ends
* The basis for turning distinct, monolithic and siloed apps into a global, open and interoperable sense-making network"
github.com/perspect3vism/ad4m/…
#AD4M
ad4m/README.md at main · perspect3vism/ad4m
The Agent-Centric Distributed Application Meta-ontology or just: Agent-Centric DApp Meta-ontology - ad4m/README.md at main · perspect3vism/ad4mGitHub
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now)
in reply to Strypey • • •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 fluxsocial.io/ but for #Fediverse #ActivityPub. Especially visions going 'beyond apps' to composable personal experiences have appeal. Dunno if we ever get there.
Flux – A Social Toolkit for the New Internet
fluxsocial.iosmallcircles (Humane Tech Now)
in reply to smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) • • •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:
discuss.coding.social/t/questi…
Question: Does having a technology vision help adoption?
Discuss Social CodingStrypey
in reply to smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) • • •The rationale for the Cryptographic Autonomy License is explained here by Art Brock:
blog.holochain.org/understandi…
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:
theregister.com/2020/01/03/osi…
Not sure what the FSF folks make of it, it's not yet listed on the gnu.org licenses page.
Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data-sharing crypto license: 'We've gone the wrong way with licensing'
Thomas Claburn (The Register)Strypey
in reply to Strypey • • •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
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now)
in reply to Strypey • • •Strypey
in reply to smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) • • •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
smallcircles (Humane Tech Now)
in reply to Strypey • • •Yes, it was Mongo's variation to their previous licensing to the AGPL.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_S…
software license published by MongoDB Inc.
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Strypey
in reply to smallcircles (Humane Tech Now) • • •Here's the OSI statement on SSPL, describing it as #fauxpen:
opensource.org/node/1099
@alcinnz
The SSPL is Not an Open Source License | Open Source Initiative
opensource.org