On the topic of ownership in federated and p2p social networks Show more

@zatnosk it should be all right reserved by default, never good to force people use open licenses.

@miwilc it doesn't make sense to public something in a distributed social network, without permitting it being stored and retransmitted on other servers.

@zatnosk yeah, the other option is to use a CC-BY-ND license by default.

@miwilc There can exist other licenses than CC and "All Rights Reserved".

Which is why I called for a _new license_ to be designed, that would only allow storing and sharing in a given social network.

@zatnosk how do you define social network in a cross-country applicable legal way

@miwilc name the protocol. If what you're doing is not a part of the named protocol, you're not licensed to do it.

@zatnosk that is extremely vague and could invalidate the "all rights reserved" clause.

Better to do what YouTube/Facebook does and add a ToS,

Maybe something like: "by using this service, you agree to authorize us to send your media to other servers for purposes of federation, you still own your content"

@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.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Private mastodon server run by Zatnosk