To put a finer point on it, that’s precisely why it’s important for Free Software to be copyleft rather than merely permissively-licensed. (And for it to either have a trustworthy copyright holder, like the Free Software Foundation or similar non-profit, or to have too many copyright holders to make changing the license tractable.)
Exactly. They would have to rewrite all the code in order to make it proprietary. AGPL license ensures that not even an instance owner can (legally) change the code of their own instance without releasing the modified source code.
We need to make sure that any apps that are created for Lemmy, also have a Copyleft license. At the very least they should be Free Software (which doesn’t seem to be guaranteed sadly, since most people don’t know what that means).
“Created for Lemmy” isn’t really a thing, all you need is to implement the ActivityPub protocol. Whether or not it has any relationship to Lemmy has no bearing on if it can talk to instances using Lemmy’s implementation.
To put a finer point on it, that’s precisely why it’s important for Free Software to be copyleft rather than merely permissively-licensed. (And for it to either have a trustworthy copyright holder, like the Free Software Foundation or similar non-profit, or to have too many copyright holders to make changing the license tractable.)
Exactly. They would have to rewrite all the code in order to make it proprietary. AGPL license ensures that not even an instance owner can (legally) change the code of their own instance without releasing the modified source code.
We need to make sure that any apps that are created for Lemmy, also have a Copyleft license. At the very least they should be Free Software (which doesn’t seem to be guaranteed sadly, since most people don’t know what that means).
“Created for Lemmy” isn’t really a thing, all you need is to implement the ActivityPub protocol. Whether or not it has any relationship to Lemmy has no bearing on if it can talk to instances using Lemmy’s implementation.