• TheYang@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    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

        • 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

              Then cite the law, since you seem so confident about it

              Or even one instance of legal consequences being brought against an open source code owner who changed the license (betting you can’t find one)

              The truth of the matter is licenses mean nothing to the people who don’t have the resources to hire lawyers to argue about them.

              The owner of the NPM repo that took down 1/3 of the internet because he decided he didn’t want to share anymore had a license, and NPM said “yeah, well, we’re taking your work anyway, fuck you” and what was supposedly “legal” meant fuck all

            • 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

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

              github doesn’t contain this file for laughs it contains it for legal reasons

              Citation needed.

              I include those files all the time for convenience and to promote my gratitude to the people who gave their work for free with no legal protections around how it could be used.