On the topic of ownership in federated and p2p social networks Show more
I really think social network protocols should include mandatory license metadata.
And obviously this should include a license designed for "you may share this in the social media network in which I have published it, but nothing else" as a default.
Having the network be aware of which media are Creative Commons licensed is potentially very powerful - especially in the case of aggregators that can then link to source and license.
@miwilc it doesn't make sense to public something in a distributed social network, without permitting it being stored and retransmitted on other servers.
@miwilc name the protocol. If what you're doing is not a part of the named protocol, you're not licensed to do it.
@miwilc a ToS is meaningless in a federated social network.
No terms I set on myself on manowar.social can restrict what mastodon.social and users on m.s is allowed to do with my content.
Only a license can do that.
And I'm _obviously_ not saying the license should be worded as I describe it. I'd want professional lawyers to design one that is a usable for this context and sits between "All Rights Reserved" and "Creative Commons" in permissiveness.
Private mastodon server run by Zatnosk