Trump’s Social Media Platform and the Affero General Public License (of Mastodon)

Trump’s Social Media Platform and the Affero General Public License (of Mastodon)

by Bradley M. Kuhn on October 21, 2021

 <h3>An analysis: Trump's Group has 30 days to remedy the violation, or their rights in the    software are permanently terminated</h3>  <p>In 2002, we used phrases like “Web 2.0” and “AJAX”  to describe the revolution that was happening in web technology for average  consumers.  This was  just before names like Twitter  and Facebook became famous worldwide.  Web 2.0 was the groundwork  infrastructure of the “social media” to come.</p>    <p>As software policy folks, my colleagues and I knew that these technologies  were catalysts for change. Software applications, traditionally purchased on  media and installed explicitly, were now implicitly installed through web  browsers — delivered automatically, or even sometimes run on the user's  behalf on someone else's  computer. As <a href="">copyleft</a>  activists specifically, we knew that copyleft licensing would have to adjust,  too.</p>    <p>In late 2001, I sat and read and reread section 2(c) of the GPLv2.  After    much thought, I saw how it could be adapted, using the geeky computer    science    concept <a href="">called a    quine</a> — a program that has a feature to print its own source code    for the user.  A similar section to GPLv2§2(c) could be written that    would assure that every user of a copylefted program on the Internet would    be guaranteed the rights and freedoms to copy, modify, redistribute and/or    reinstall their software — which was done by offering a source-code    provision feature to every user on the network.  The key concept behind    the <a href="">Affero GPL (AGPL)    version 1</a> was born.  Others drafted and released AGPLv1 based on my    idea.  Five years later, I was proudly in the “room where it    happened”    when <a href="">Affero    GPL version 3</a> was drafted.  Some of the words in that section are ones    I suggested.</p>    <p>We were imagining a lot about the future in those days; the task of    copyleft licensing drafting requires trying to foresee how others might    attempt to curtail the software rights and freedoms of others.  Predicting    the future is difficult and error-prone.  Today, a piece of Affero GPLv3's    future came to pass that I would not have predicted back in November    2007 at its release. </p>  <p>I invented that network source code disclosure provision of the    AGPL — the copyleft  license later applied to <a href="">the Mastodon  software</a> — in 2002 in light of that very problem: parties who  don't share our values might use (or even contribute to) software written by the FOSS community.  The  license purposefully treats everyone equally (even people we don't like or  agree with), but they must operate under the same rules of the copyleft  licenses that apply to everyone else.</p>    <p>Today, we saw the Trump Media and Technology Group ignoring those important rules  — which were designed for the social good.  Once caught in the act,  Trump's Group scrambled and took the site down.</p>    <p>Early evidence strongly supports that Trump's Group publicly launched a  so-called “test site” of their “Truth Social”  product, based on the <a href="">AGPLv3'd Mastodon  software</a> platform.  Many users were able to create accounts and use it  — briefly.  However, when you put any site on the Internet licensed  under AGPLv3, the AGPLv3  requires that you provide (to <em>every</em> user) an opportunity to  receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code.  These early users did not receive that source code, and Trump's Group  is currently ignoring their very public requests for it.  To comply with this important FOSS license,   Trump's Group needs to immediately make that Corresponding Source available to all who used the site today while it was live.  If they fail to do this within 30 days, their rights and permissions in the software are automatically and permanently    terminated.  That's how AGPLv3's cure provision works — no exceptions —    even if you're a real estate mogul, reality television star, or even a  former POTUS.</p>    <p>I and my colleagues at Software Freedom Conservancy are experts at  investigating non-<a href="">compliance</a> with copyleft license and enforcing those  licenses once we confirm the violations.  We will be following this issue  very closely and insisting that Trump's Group give the Corresponding Source  to all who use the site.</p>    <p>Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone  illegally broke into the website.  All the evidence available on the Internet  (as of 2021-10-22) indicates that the site was  simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration (such  as pre-reserving some account names). Once discovered, people merely used the  site legitimately to register accounts and use its features.</p>    <p>Update (2021-10-22): Some have asked us  how this situation relates to our <a href="">Principles of  Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement</a>, since we are publicly analyzing a  copyleft violation publicly.  Historically, we did similarly with the <a href="">Canonical, Ltd.</a>,  <a href="">Cambium,  Ubiquiti</a>, and <a href="">Tesla</a> (<a href="">twice!</a>) violations.  We do believe  that “confidentiality can increase receptiveness and  responsiveness”, but once a story is already made widely known to the public by a  third-party, confidentiality is no longer  possible, since the public already knows the details.  At that moment, the need to educate the public supersedes any value in non-disclosure.</p>     <p><a href="">[permalink]</a></p>    <p>Tags:      <a href="">conservancy</a>,    <a href="">GPL</a>,    <a href="">licensing</a></p>

Read More from the Source

Leave a Reply