With posts like this, it's becoming really clear and important that we disentangle "the Fediverse" from "Mastodon."
@Gargron, you've done great work that we're all grateful for, but you're standing on the shoulders of many, many others that you rarely credit or acknowledge.
This attitude isn't what we built the fediverse for. đą
This is a crude, bad faith mischaracterization of events, with a screenshot deliberately disconnecting the message from what it was replying to, in the context of a longer conversation, and then doubly mischaracterizing what said message actually says.
You and Mastodon GmbH benefit massively from the immense amount of work that the wider fediverse community does.
While I appreciate the perspective that the software != the community, I respectfully disagree. The decisions for the software impact the community, as we heard so profoundly at the Black Twitter Summit. The concern I have is that you often conflate the software and the community when it suits, but reject it when it doesn't.
like it or not, "Mastodon" isn't just "Mastodon GmbH" or even just the software â it refers to the Fediverse in common usage. That's a tension that's not going away, and I profoundly worry about the your suggestion (understandable, at some level) that your org will exert control over what does and does not constitute "Mastodon."
I will have to maintain that Mastodon refers to the Mastodon software, or that part of the fediverse that is running on the Mastodon software, and cannot and should not be used as a synonym for the fediverse overall. But this isn't what the thread was about at all.
sorry, I misspoke - I meant trademark. It's possible you didn't mean to imply this, but "you are benefitting from the recognition of our trademark ... you can develop your own social media platform from scratch and participate in the fediverse that way" seems to suggest that "if you don't like our decisions, do your own thing, but don't call it Mastodon."
If that's not a fair assessment, I'd be greatly relieved.
That's a very far cry from what my message said. I must assume you haven't read the thread I linked. I was responding to someone claiming they felt like an unpaid SRE for our organisation because there weren't enough customization options built into the software. I pointed out that they run a commercial service on top of it, and benefit from the recognition and goodwill of our brand.
It's absolutely fine for one person to have a strong view of what "Mastodon, the software" is, but anyone dictating what the Fediverse is anathema to us all. It gets messy when "Mastodon" is used for "the Fediverse."
This is one reason why I actually think it'd be better for everyone (Mastodon devs, folks working on non-Mastodon servers and clients, other projects integrating with ActivityPub in various ways, and end users) if awareness could be raised of "the fediverse" as a thing that all these participate in, possibly by some new terminology / logo / phrasing / I don't know that everyone could get behind.
The challenge I see is one of categories: cf, "Debian" is a variant of "Linux", even though Linus decides what goes in the official kernel.
If Linus said to Debian "you can ship and modify the linux kernel, but you can't call it Linux" that would be a huge problem. Given the aspirations we all have for the fediverse, that conflict feels potentially even more profound.
I feel like "the fediverse" suffers a bit from not having a term/word for itself that feels as approachable/understandable as Mastodon does at the moment to random folks out there. So we're in a place where there's confusion between the genericization of Mastodon to mean the network, not just the software (think Xerox vs photocopy). Mastodon benefits from this to some extent, but there are downsides too (like parts of today's conversation and other negative reactions).
I'm super down for using Mastodon to refer to the network, but if Mastodon GmbH is going to assert trademark over divergent implementations, "Houston, we have a problem" as they say đ
This is one reason why I actually think it'd be better for everyone (Mastodon devs, folks working on non-Mastodon servers and clients, other projects integrating with ActivityPub in various ways, and end users) if awareness could be raised of "the fediverse" as a thing that all these participate in, possibly by some new terminology / logo / phrasing / I don't know that everyone could get behind.
you donât get to control that. Mastodon has become like âKleenexâ instead of âfacial tissueâ and it is very possible that it a court of competent jurisdiction takes away some of your rights to control how âMastodonâ is used. If enough people do use the term âMastodonâ to mean to âFediverseâ, eventually you will lose your trademark rights.
@peepstein I am not aware of anyone who is using "Mastodon" to refer to the fediverse. When somebody says "join Mastodon", I have not seen a single case where what they actually meant was "sign up on Pixelfed or Pleroma". Mastodon is a platform that is part of the fediverse but is distinct by its software.
e.g., I've had many conversations with journalists who equate the fediverse with Mastodon, and most laypeople who have heard of Mastodon don't know what the fediverse is, but understand "mastodon" to refer to the thing I understand "the fediverse" to be.
@peepstein If they don't know what the fediverse is, how could they be referring to it? It seems like the disparity comes from your own understanding. If I ask "How many MAU are there on Pixelfed?", I am not asking about a specific Pixelfed server, nor am I asking about the fediverse overall. Why should it be different for Mastodon?
I donât think you realize the minefield here. Remember a few facts: APIs cannot be copyrighted, a federation of computers on the public internet is not an own-able thing, and an organization has to be extremely deliberate in order to avoid a name becoming a generic trademark. âLinuxâ is not Debian nor SUSE nor RedHat, but all of those things are definitely Linux. So good luck with Mastodon, itâs probably a lost cause.
@peepstein I don't agree with any of that. Mastodon is Mastodon. Everyone in the know, knows exactly what that is, and those who don't can be educated accordingly. I've already gone through this entire conversation with regard to the term "podcast" (no, it does not mean "any audio show on the internet"!)
It's really quite dangerous to repurpose technical terms to mean what they are not. HTML is not any markup, it's a very specific type of markup. Markdown is not Textile. etc.
@jaredwhite @peepstein I think the point is that it doesn't matter what any of us think if common usage overrides our intent or understanding.
All that matters is that we correctly assess how terms are used and understood, and work from that basis.
My OP was calling out the need to disentangle "Mastodon" from "the Fediverse" if (and only if) the intent of Mastodon GmbH was to assert trademark control against "non-conformant" forks (or, indeed, non-derived fediverse software).
@jaredwhite @peepstein I'm disappointed your OP is still up even though it has nothing to do with trademark control, forks, or the fediverse, and is an out of context screenshot of a targeted reply to someone specific as explained in the linked thread.
@jaredwhite @peepstein removed. I'm not looking for an argument over miscommunications. đ
I do think the trademark issue is real, and disagree with your assessment that people understand the difference between "Mastodon" and "the Fediverse"; you have a lot of power in this space, and your words carry a lot of weight.
@peepstein when people who don't know about "the fediverse" refer to "mastodon", they mean "a decentralized alternative to twitter" â which is what you and I know as the fediverse.
They're *not* specifically referring to "Mastodon, a software project written in Ruby on Rails that interoperates with a wider network of other software that we've never heard of"
@peepstein Mastodon is a decentralized alternative to Twitter. So is the fediverse. But the fediverse is a blurry concept with no clear lines and no clear UX expectations. PeerTube isn't an alternative to Twitter. When you're referring to Mastodon, you're referring to a specific UX that comes with the software.
@peepstein my heartfelt opinion is that that perspective is stifling to the other possibilities presented by the fediverse. đ
Mastodon is the, err, elephant in the room. I sincerely believe that we'll all be better off with more diversity, and right now the terminology is a real barrier to that, for everyone involved.
The #OGB describes a permissionless process/structure that is open and allows the group that forms using the tools to decide who is a part of the group or not.
@rigo as someone whoâs been involved in that (most notably with Debian/Iceweasel) since 2006 or so this is how marks and OSS generally work.
You can fork and rebrand Firefox as much as you want. But if you want to call it Firefox you have to get your changes approved. (In the same way that every change to Firefox gets reviewed!)
Turns out this is important because there were far more people who wanted to distribute Firefox with malware than with good changes.
@mconnor @rigo totally. Linux is a clear exception here, because "Debian" definitely isn't "Linux" but also it is.
I think Mastodon is going to be more like that, so my original (now deleted) point is (imho) pretty important. Either we're going to end up with "Mastodon" as a generic term that refers to the network of federated social software, or we need to intentionally stop using "Mastodon" in that way and replace it with a generic term (e.g. fediverse).
@mconnor @rigo Mastodon is not a generic term. You can ask a Pleroma user if they want to be referred to as a Mastodon user. You will get a very strong answer. Mastodon refers only to the Mastodon part of the fediverse. Please use a generic term like fediverse for anything else.
@mconnor @rigo Iâve been thinking about this a lot for a while (and Iâll write up thoughts so people can respond more fully), but whatâs clearly needed is a consistent way of referring to ActivityPub-connected platforms, and âfediverseâ doesnât do the job effectively (at least yet) for the broader audience many of us would like to reach.
i see your position as basically âno oneâs forcing to use it as-is, much less even use it, so donât complainâ. i generally find it hard to argue against this point, but youâre still going to get ppl saying that you bear most of the responsibility since you helped build this. in practice, not too different from how ppl hold Big Social Media responsible for what happens on their platforms. (in theory yes, big difference; just not in practice).
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •See thread: https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/110130251661383127
Eugen Rochko
2023-04-02 16:51:19
blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •You and Mastodon GmbH benefit massively from the immense amount of work that the wider fediverse community does.
While I appreciate the perspective that the software != the community, I respectfully disagree. The decisions for the software impact the community, as we heard so profoundly at the Black Twitter Summit. The concern I have is that you often conflate the software and the community when it suits, but reject it when it doesn't.
blaine
in reply to blaine • • •Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •fwiw, I'm not concerned about the thread â it was specifically the statement around the Mastodon copyright.
I think it'd be really helpful to figure out a way to build that narrative can hold that distinction.
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •If that's not a fair assessment, I'd be greatly relieved.
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •I believe you that it was a far cry from what you intended. đ
The BDFL approach is complicating in these scenarios, because in social settings "benevolence" to one is "hostile" to another.
I think @swetland's point gets to the root of this: https://chaos.social/@swetland/110130547164629389
It's absolutely fine for one person to have a strong view of what "Mastodon, the software" is, but anyone dictating what the Fediverse is anathema to us all. It gets messy when "Mastodon" is used for "the Fediverse."
Brian Swetland
2023-04-02 18:06:28
blaine
in reply to blaine • • •If Linus said to Debian "you can ship and modify the linux kernel, but you can't call it Linux" that would be a huge problem. Given the aspirations we all have for the fediverse, that conflict feels potentially even more profound.
Brian Swetland
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Brian Swetland • • •I'm super down for using Mastodon to refer to the network, but if Mastodon GmbH is going to assert trademark over divergent implementations, "Houston, we have a problem" as they say đ
Brian Swetland
in reply to blaine • • •ASP ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Ed
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Ed
in reply to Ed • • •trademark or brand name that has become the generic name for a class of product or service, sometimes resulting in loss of legal protection
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Eugen Rochko
in reply to Ed • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •e.g., I've had many conversations with journalists who equate the fediverse with Mastodon, and most laypeople who have heard of Mastodon don't know what the fediverse is, but understand "mastodon" to refer to the thing I understand "the fediverse" to be.
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •Ed
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Jared C.S.S. White
in reply to Ed • • •It's really quite dangerous to repurpose technical terms to mean what they are not. HTML is not any markup, it's a very specific type of markup. Markdown is not Textile. etc.
blaine
in reply to Jared C.S.S. White • • •All that matters is that we correctly assess how terms are used and understood, and work from that basis.
My OP was calling out the need to disentangle "Mastodon" from "the Fediverse" if (and only if) the intent of Mastodon GmbH was to assert trademark control against "non-conformant" forks (or, indeed, non-derived fediverse software).
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •I do think the trademark issue is real, and disagree with your assessment that people understand the difference between "Mastodon" and "the Fediverse"; you have a lot of power in this space, and your words carry a lot of weight.
blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •They're *not* specifically referring to "Mastodon, a software project written in Ruby on Rails that interoperates with a wider network of other software that we've never heard of"
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •blaine
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Mastodon is the, err, elephant in the room. I sincerely believe that we'll all be better off with more diversity, and right now the terminology is a real barrier to that, for everyone involved.
tallship
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Really Eugen?
Your interview with Time Magazine notwithstanding?
That was IMO, a grave error on your part - conflating mastodon with #Fediverse and without one single utterance of the word "Fediverse" throughout.
It served to cause much of this confusion on the part of n00bs and as a result, now jeopardizes your trademark.
Fact: There's no such thing as a mastodon network. Only the #ActivityPub powered Fediverse
â”
.
Admin
in reply to blaine • • •Working and thinking on "native" #openweb aproches to governance
SocialHubRigo Wenning
in reply to blaine • • •As long as mastodon is supporting ActivityPub (and its foreseeable evolution), I think we are still fine. Because competition remains possible.
Compare to all the nice surveillance capitalism services from silicon valley to understand that your concern may sound alarmist.
That notwithstanding, I understand and share your concern.
Mike Connor
in reply to Rigo Wenning • • •You can fork and rebrand Firefox as much as you want. But if you want to call it Firefox you have to get your changes approved. (In the same way that every change to Firefox gets reviewed!)
Turns out this is important because there were far more people who wanted to distribute Firefox with malware than with good changes.
blaine
in reply to Mike Connor • • •I think Mastodon is going to be more like that, so my original (now deleted) point is (imho) pretty important. Either we're going to end up with "Mastodon" as a generic term that refers to the network of federated social software, or we need to intentionally stop using "Mastodon" in that way and replace it with a generic term (e.g. fediverse).
Eugen Rochko
in reply to blaine • • •Anil Dash
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •Ben âŸïž
in reply to Eugen Rochko • • •