I'm a bit worried Mike is finally heading off into #TempleOS territory...
"There will be one project and it will have no name (the project is virtual or ephemeral), but you can find it in the Streams repository on codeberg (https://codeberg.org/streams/s…). This project will not be open source or free software or closed source and has no license. It simply exists."
https://macgirvin.com/item/a8b71bc6-5eeb-4bfc-a845-5e25f1ed86be
@icedquinn
Isn't there a special CreativeCommons license for hacking around that?
@tetrislife
Not naming things is impractical. If someone you knew refused to name their children, I think you would find that weird. It's so awkward to discuss entities that don't have names, that a name will inevitably end up being chosen by rough consensus. The term fediverse is a classic example.
@strypey he has named the protocol: Zot6, Zot8, Nomad. Maybe he wants that to be the focus. E-mail, not GMail? Really, another implementation is what is missing.
@tetrislife
You're dodging the point. Not naming things is weird and makes the maintainer seem less reliable (thus the TempleOS comparison). This harms adoption. The app will end up with a name whether the maintainer gives it one or not. Or it will be ignored. In either case, the choice harms adoption. Why bother distributing software if you don't care about people using it? Especially social network software, given that network effect is a thing.
@strypey i am not dodging any point, just mentioned Nomad et al. Elsewhere, I have seen the sentiment expressed that Mike shouldn't be seen as a software architect like gargron, but as a protocol developer. There should be alternate implementations atleast talking Nomad if not replicating the Hubzilla or Zap or Streams feature-set. Somehow it doesn't seem right to expect that too from Mike et al.
@tetrislife
Why would anyone invest in building on top of the work of someone who comes across as uncooperative and unreliable? For reasons given in the post you're replying to. This is my whole point, right from the initial post. Thanks for the discussion, I'm going to leave it there.
@strypey sure. Just deriving from that, let me see how well Nomad is documented.
@tetrislife
> no corporate legal team would accept it!
What makes you think that? I would have thought a public domain statement, waiving all copyright, is even more attractive to them than pushover licenses like "MIT"/"BSD".