287
The new Mammoth app is a much simpler take on Mastodon | The Verge
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
287 points (95.8% liked)
Fediverse
27732 readers
718 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you don't like the yearly/monthly subscription, you can grab the source code and compile the app yourself. Just patch out this line with a
return true. You could also remove the check here and get access to a few settings that way.To run your own software on iOS you may need to work around Apple's fuckery (reinstalling the app every week) but I think there are automated tools that'll help with that.
Unfortunately you can't publish your app to the app store (the app is licensed as AGPL and Apple's app store procedures make it incompatible with most GPL-like licenses, and only the original copyright author had the legal right to relicense the code to allow Apple's proprietary additions) but perhaps AltStore will accept your fork.
It's AGPL. Fine with me but: Since when is AGPL code allowed on the Apple app store?
I've read CONTRIBUTING.md and unless I've missed a line by accident, there is no CLA for contributions, so with the first non-trivial 3rs party contribution the entire code base is AGPL with no way to relicense unless it's negotiated with said contributor.
The (A)GPL has no problems with the app store. It merely requires that users must be able to install altered versions and that's certainly possible. It's the app store policies by Apple that forbid GPL apps.
Missing a CLA seems like an oversight, releasing the public code under a license forbidden by Apple's terms is most likely a deliberate choice to block competing app store submissions. They'd just use LGPLv2.1, Apache License 2, or so.
The VLC people had to contact many authors to relicense libVLC to LGPLv2.1 because it would otherwise not be compliant to Apple's terms. Surely the details are documented somewhere.
"As I understand Apple’s terms, GPL code isn’t actually prohibited"
No relicensing would have been required if your understanding was correct. That said, I have a slight headache and that's why I'm not looking it up myself.
From the README:
So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.
So hostile, asymmetric licensing...