A proposal to freeze the Gemini specification

[almaember]

On October 26, 2021 12:59:33 AM GMT+02:00, Alex // nytpu <alex@nytpu.com> wrote:
>On 2021-10-26 12:20AM, almaember wrote:
>> He merely owns the website/capsule it's hosted on. Taking and hosting
>> it, or even rewording it to avoid copyright issues, is a relatively
>> simple task.
>If I take a copy of whitehouse.gov and replace all the text with "lol
>the government's dumb" does that make it the official whitehouse.gov
>site?  Solderpunk hosts the canonical version (which you said yourself
>is the one everyone follows) which means they're the one that "owns"
>the Gemini specification.

Except whitehouse.gov is run by an elected government. This will apply when we start holding elections for Gemini.
>> GitLab doesn't own the GitLab specification just because it's hosted
>> there, and neither does the operator of this mailing list own this
>> message.
>And yet I both host and own nytpu.com.
>
>Yes hosting =/= ownership, however in most cases (on Gemini at least)
>hosting *is* equivalent to ownership.

He hosts and owns the website, yes. Maybe even the spec. The protocol though? Hell, that's too abstract to be owned by anyone.
>> And, lastly this is not an open source project per se. More like a set
>> of conventions projects agree on. In other words, a standard.
>I don't recall anyone anywhere ever claiming that the Gemini Protocol
>itself is a software project; it is an open standard.  That doesn't mean
>it magically belongs to everyone and no one should have control of it.
>There are criticisms to be had about most standards organizations and
>yet I've never seen anyone (other than you, rather) claim that the
>standards body shouldn't have control over the standards they maintain
>and publish.
>
>Look at the LZMA Specification, it is entirely maintained an published
>by one guy (it hasn't been updated since 2015 either).  By your logic,
>shouldn't he have no rights to it and instead it should never be
>modified ever.

And you would be correct. At least already released versions shouldn't be retroactively modified. Releasing further revisions is fine.

>It's public domain so you could create and modify your
>own right now.  Yet veryone would ignore your hypothetical version and
>still use his canonical version that he owns and hosts, and nobody other
>than you would dispute any future changes he made that diverged from
>your version.
>
>~nytpu
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.