• RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    That he signed the NDA at all means he’s been bought, or is planning to be.

    Everyone in open source knows those are tools to shut down prominent voices from being able to call out abuse and rally support. They just make sure to hit every needed talking point in the meeting, and now he legally can’t condemn anything meta does because it is “covered by NDA”

    It’s just one of many shitty ways corporations try and exert coercive control over OSS

    • TheYang@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s bullshit.
      Especially without knowing the terms of the NDA. It could just be that they can’t talk about Metas App Specifics, and/or that the NDA is limited in duration, so they may be able to talk about everything once the App is out.
      Yes, it could be what you are talking about, a complete gag order, but “NDA” as a term is way to broad to say that for sure.

      It just says that he currently values knowing more about Metas plans higher than being able to tell us about Metas plans.
      I mean, depending on the timeline, one could check if there’s any interesting PRs by him, that may infer something about Metas plans.

      • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hope for the best, plan for the worst

        Yea the NDA could be benign. Too bad the whole thing is fucking designed to look that way when it’s not.

        I’m planning for him to release the next mastodon release under a different license, one far more favorable to Shitbook

        • Spellbind0127@mstdn.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @RandoCalrandian @hedge @LChitman @TheYang he change the license of mastodon on the next release thats not legal he would have to get everyone who has contributed to mastodon to agree. (Honestly the things you are saying on this thread make it seem like you are just saying stuff that you know nothing about).

          • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why the hell do you think this? Or push it?

            you seem to know nothing about what you’re talking about

            Have you even committed code to an open source project? Maintainers do not automatically get a say, I can’t submit a PR and block this, and code has Owners as well, who can override the maintainers at any time

            Corporations count on as much when they get the owner to sell out, and force the maintainers to setup a fork and lose a fuckton of momentum

            • Spellbind0127@mstdn.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              @RandoCalrandian l@Spellbind0127 because thats the law you can’t just change the license of code that other have contributed to just because you own the repository doesn’t make it so you own the legal rights to all the code. (Your an idiot if you say otherwise. )

              • RandoCalrandian@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                lol, you clearly don’t know law

                They can release the next version under whatever license they want, because they own the code

                Happens all the time