@ChrisWere @angristan What's this about #Hiveway? The Whitepaper says it is built on top of @Mastodon They are clearly violating the AGPL by removing the hints to Mastodon and not publishing the source code, or am I missing something? I am not that used to AGPL.

@christopher @ChrisWere @angristan they're publishing but rewrote the damn git history to make it look like they wrote it. and apparently did the same with tusky.

Gabriele Lucci @gabriele

@sl2c @christopher @ChrisWere @angristan

I'm late to the party, but AFAIK, removing the git history is not a violation of the AGPL. Git is not even mentioned in GNU Public licenses... If you fork a GPL project and distribute the binaries (or services in the case of AGPL) you have to give the source code to the users in any form. You can even send each user a floppy disk with the code, if that's convenient.

· Web · 1 · 0

@gabriele @sl2c @ChrisWere @angristan I mean you have to give attribution to the authors of the forked project. But Hiveway violates clearly by not providing a prominent link to the source code.

What bothers me is that the normal user will have no clue that Hiveway is based on Mastodon.

@christopher

Umm, yeah, I guess that might be a violation. If not a strict violation that's still an asshole move...