Comment on a GitHub PR for Twitter's algorithm. CLA Assistant commented: CLA signed. All committers have signed the CLA.

Notices where this attachment appears

1. Reina :maybe_verified: (reina@antabaka.me)'s status on Saturday, 01-Apr-2023 12:14:10 JST Reina :maybe_verified:

   So, Twitter made their algorithm open-source with a strong copyleft licence, AGPL-3.0. People are already spamming it with troll issues and PRs ...

   And this is where you'd think I would say that doing stuff like that is bad and so on. But no. I would actually encourage it. Not because "twitter bad" but because them making the algorithm open-source is a performative action.

   What? But it's AGPL-3.0 I hear you say. That's a great license, I hear you say! Yes, it is, but they require you to sign a Contributors License Agreement. While I haven't read Twitter's CLA terms myself (couldn't find it), these typically give the company all rights to the code you contributed, which also means that they can relicense the project at any time. That means that the AGPL-3.0 licence is practically pointless.

   I'd suggest that instead of spamming pointless BS about Twitter sucking (do that on Twitter instead and @ Elon when you do it), we should instead spam about how having to sign a CLA is predatory.

   Tell them to switch to using Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) instead which is what actual FOSS projects like Linux uses. They're as simple as signing the git commit. DCO prevent the company from taking all the work contributors put in and making the software proprietary in the future.

   #Twitter #FOSS #OpenSource