@tylor I don't even use mastodon :3.

freesoftwareextremist.com is Pleroma and I use the bloatFE frontend.

Although Pleroma might technically count as SaaSS, even though it's licensed under the AGPLv3, the fediverse is designed to prevent and avoid lock-in.

I'm not happy with any instance, I can just go use another instance or host my own.


The AGPLv3 is an excellent license that does a good job at preventing the enemies of freedom turning free software into SaaSS, as any modified source code being hosted on a server to do other people's computing, needs to be provided to the users.

"Google" and the like don't touch AGPLv3 licensed software, as using it would ruin their plans - as if they used AGPLv3 licensed software, although they could make whatever modification they wanted to the software and implement any kind of cryptography mechanism they want, they'd have to release the source code of their modified version.

Users could then take this modified version, remove the misfeatures and host it on their own server, which "Google" does not what to happen - they want the products to use their servers only, so the product can be profited off.


It took me until now to realise this, but rms and others had incredible foresite as to what was likely to happen and wrote the GPLv3 and AGPLv3 to prevent free software from being used in such attack against the users.

They did it without restring any kind of modification to the software as well, as any kind of digital handcuffs can be implemented with the software, but the user must be provided with the key for the handcuffs, thus making the handcuffs pointless, as someone will just remove the misfeature and release a fixed version, or provide instructions on its removal.

"Remote attestation" implemented with {A}GPLv3'd software is also permitted, it's just that the user must be in control of any keys stored on the device and the "security" processor software cannot stop operating merely because the user modified the software:
"Installation Information" for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.

"Microsoft" of course was quick to complain about this, but they haven't used any GPLv3'd code to implement Pluton either, although that would make things easier for them.


I guess I'll end with the note that if you are releasing software, no matter how trivial, it is critical to license either under the GPLv3-or-later or the AGPLv3-or-later, with the latter strongly recommended if the software has a remote chance of being used to do other users computing (really, the AGPLv3 should be compatible with every license the GPLv3 is, aside from one or two that would otherwise be incompatible, but state compatibility with "the GPL" only, but even then, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which part can be the GPLv3'd part and which part can be the AGPLv3'd part).