Hi dear great AP community!
I’m glad to share with you, that our research on interconnectivity is advancing and we’re starting our open prototype development with our first dev meeting tonight Jan 25, 7:30 pm cet! 2022-01-25T18:30:00Z
Heartfelt invitation to you to join the meeting if you feel interested, currently the team consist of quite a mix of 5 people with different backgrounds and skill levels, but who all deeply care about a better future for our digital communication environments. In the meeting we’ll discuss the development plan and decide on the test environment we want to start with. Feel free to ask me anything here or join our matrix channel.
Here are some links:
Prototype development plan:
Development team communications:
matrix.to/#/#iconet-foundation:matrix.org
Cheers and all the best!
Steffen
iconet Foundation
we connect networks - we connect people
Hey Melvin,
that part is still from our old version of the homepage and the formulation is misleading, wrote a ticket to change it.
Last year we applied for one of the Mozilla interledger funding rounds, and focused on our compatibility with their concepts. Though micropayments are not in our core spec, we still believe it should be available in a social network, so users can choose to pay for their consumed media as flexible, as their consuming it. To have an alternative to ads or abos. That’s why we kept the section in last time we talked about it.
But the formulation makes it seem as we’re advancing research in this direction which is not the case, so we’ll fix it. But if you’re aware of projects in that area that we should know about, I’m happy if you share them.
TLDR: We’re not researching MP, we hope interconnectivity can foster constructive MP environments, we’ll update the webpage so it’ll communicate our passiveness in that regard.
Hi thanks for sharing
The OMN is a great project. What we’re trying to do is a bit different, the biggest one being that we committed to the design: The authors system fully determines the interaction methods and handles them. A 0 interoperability system, as a fail-save structure, for those communication use-cases where systems are not interoperable. In OMN from my understanding the key operations for sharing open media are defined.
This way we try to achieve exactly what you’re second comment hints to: to avoid the need for people to churn from their tech. We’re trying to connect as many people from the tech where they are currently sitting at, giving them then the chance to make free and good choices, instead of creating a great open network, where people have to move to.
So thanks for the thoughts, glad to hear more from you!
I must ask: your FAQ states about licensing that you want to make the source code “available”, but you have not chosen a license yet.
Since we’re about free software here I would not like to confuse people about participating in something that will end up being proprietary. Can you please expand on this topic?
It is very funny to ask before they even do the first meeting where they invite you very friendly.
Where did we decide that we are about “free software” only ???
This would not comply to the Rules for W3C community guidelines.
We said and per record voted “This forum is open to everyone interested in ActivityPub.”
When and how did that change ???
Fair point, we just ment that we haven’t fixed which of the open licences we’ll be publishing in yet.
We fixed in our bylaws of the organisation that everything we’ll produce and publish will be open.
But thanks for bringing that up, it’s probably a good point to fix early in development, so everybodys on the same page about it.
I’ll have a look into the different open licences and bring it up in the team.
Any recommendations from here?
Thanks Sebi, then i’m guessing this topic is more about how this forum aims to treat proprietary projects in general. But i would agree with @how, that they’d at least mark their intentions in some way, when asking for help on an open source related board.
For more clearing, no intentions of making the things we develop proprietary, i don’t even think it would work that way if we wanted to. To find broad adaptions it needs to be free and open.
But i guess we’ll have to write those goals more central on our frontpage, thanks for the indirect feedback
It’ s not funny. I like to know where I put my energies. I want to ensure I am not harming people when I do things. Since the matter is important to me and is not clear, I ask. It’s only fair.
I usually prefer the AGPL-3.0-or-later for code that is transmitted over the network since it protects users and ensures reciprocity of contributors, forbidding free-riding and modifications that do not benefit the user community. But I also know that several licenses can be used for different parts of the system. For example, I like using the Free Art License 1.3 for the artwork (logos, medias…), and maybe CC-BY-SA 4.0 for documentation; if a library needs to go into a larger system, I’d choose a license compatible with the target system: in this case I’d rather use CC-0 1.0 than a broken or historically worn out license such as BSD-2-Clause that was abused to incorporate public work into proprietary software. I would always prefer an FSF Free/Libre, GPL-compatible license even to OSI-approved.
The FSFE released https://reuse.software a method and Python software to include more than one license in your software. Usually when starting new software, you only consider a single license. But often you need to incorporate existing code licensed under another one, and it quickly becomes a mess to keep track of licenses and where they apply. REUSE solves this with a very elegant system that allows you to declare a generic license for a tree, and easily identify exceptions using a .reuse/dep5 file. I highly recommend using this to keep your code repositories clean and legally sound, and to separate code that should remain compatible with other systems with potentially incompatible licensing schemes in their own repositories.
Relicensing a whole repository just to appear in the catalogue of an “app” vendor is ultimately detrimental to the commons down the line. So the licensing of software, especially like yours that promise interconnectivity, is very important to the future of knowledge commons. If you like to discuss licensing further we could certainly dedicate a space for this, or discuss strategies with our friends at FSFE.
Yep true, i mixed that up and i am very sorry. The meeting has been announced for tomorrow and is going to happen tomorrow. Somehow last week when i looked it up, i saved to my mind that we’ll be meeting Tuesday.
So with our team we’ll be meeting tomorrow, however if you want to talk now rather than tomorrow, we’re currently still calling.
We’re usually meeting via gather.town, in case you or someone wants to join now or tomorrow, the link is
Hi!
We’ve received a semester of funding and developed a prototype one year ago. It’s not polished yet and also not made very accessible yet But those are our next steps.
Also the entire team took a fool year off, since we needed to look out for other jobs to buy our breads and arrive in those new life situations.
We’ve slowly restarted this year, e.g. Martin published a way more polished version of the Webpage.
The Docs are next.
Happy you asked, hope to be more able to contribute to the community in the near future again, but currently there are a lot of balls in the air with the other jobs aswell.
But those are our next steps.