| 25 Jun 2021 |
 @nicksellen:matrix.org | ah, and when Mariha Kozinska says "There was..." that means on a call I guess. from my perspective, we had a call last week, and sort of left an open question about the next one. | 19:30:19 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | but was it mentioned somewhere that I missed? how did other people manage to find it/ | 19:31:07 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | * but was it mentioned somewhere that I missed? how did other people manage to find it? | 19:31:09 |
 circlebuilder | Not sure, but we've reused the same jitsi URL, so maybe from the matrix history.. | 19:31:49 |
 Mariha Kozinska | Hey, sorry have I already mentioned that I am horrible organizer? | 21:20:55 |
| Mariha Kozinska | I made it actually “Office hours aka weekly meeting” so that people don’t feel obligated to come, but if they do they can meet other at this time and place and talk about the project. | 21:23:08 |
| Mariha Kozinska | Two weeks ago I posted in hospex summit an info about the meeting, here’s where they knew. | 21:24:00 |
| Mariha Kozinska | Do you guys think we’d better rename fedihospex to Open Hospitality Movement? Or do you have any other propositions? | 21:31:36 |
| circlebuilder | Some more background to my thinking of OHM as an alternative term: It is intentionally broader than federation. Federation is a means, but not an end. The reason you're looking for it is to remain free and open, not thwarted by commercial interests. | 21:34:06 |
| Mariha Kozinska | (I personally like Initiative more, it sounds less pretentious to me) | 21:34:19 |
| circlebuilder | Yes, 'movement' has more of an element of activism in it. It may also be a greater encouragement for more project to join, was my thinking. And in the name is Hospitality which encompasses more than Hospitality Exchange. There's a whole bunch of bad commercial stuff going on with e.g. sites like booking.com and what-have-you, where federated self-hosted software + building blocks may offer interesting use cases (in the future). | 21:37:03 |
| circlebuilder | In reply to @mariha:matrix.org
Hey, sorry have I already mentioned that I am horrible organizer? Don't worry, you are doing fine. And this is not a company with fixed roles.. anyone can do their bit :D | 21:38:04 |
| circlebuilder | A community that together we shape and improve.. | 21:38:40 |
| circlebuilder | Btw, another distinction of initiative vs. movement: the first sounds more as something that is led (e.g. by a core team), while the latter sound more like its grassroots and anyone can participate equally. | 21:41:49 |
| circlebuilder | * Btw, another distinction of initiative vs. movement: the first sounds more as something that is led (e.g. by a core team), while the latter sound more like its grassroots and anyone can participate equally (and independently too, but still within the movement). | 21:42:44 |
| Mariha Kozinska | Let’s open a contest for a new name, we’ll close it next week. Not changing anything is always an option too! | 21:42:58 |
| circlebuilder | That's a great idea. | 21:43:31 |
| circlebuilder | Fedi poll? | 21:43:54 |
| circlebuilder | Or via your own channel? Or both? | 21:44:09 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | In reply to @mariha:matrix.org
After reading that ZeroMQ guide, I’d like to propose to relicense federated-trustroots from MIT (BSD like) to AGPL. We can discuss more tomorrow. did you look into relicensing from MIT to AGPL? if it needed agreement from contributors, then it's a major pain, but MIT is quite free, I looked into it before at some point, but got a bit confused and overwhelmed so closed all the tabs again (other interest: I'd like to relicense karrot frontend MIT -> AGPL too) | 21:46:24 |
| circlebuilder | This is a good point. Might do an #askfedi for it. There's ppl with experience on that out there. | 21:47:58 |
| Mariha Kozinska | I haven’t, I thought I’ll wait for the next week when there are more people and that someone might now. Would be great if you could ask around! | 21:49:30 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | cool. from my brief look/memory, it might be a case of dual licensing, and new contirbutions being AGPL-only.. (with MIT being flexible enough to be relicensed) | 21:50:27 |
| circlebuilder | Yea, I think that's an option in all cases. The other way round is not possible like that I think. | 21:51:14 |
| Mariha Kozinska | Also, how does the situation looks like if someone wanted to reintegrate some changes back to TR and syncing from TR to us? | 21:51:22 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | as circlebuilder said, I think AGPL contributions will not fit into an MIT codebase. | 21:52:56 |
| @nicksellen:matrix.org | definately complicates things not using the same license, but I think AGPL is the right license (or rather, the one I like for these things) | 21:53:29 |
| circlebuilder | Not sure about that though. A relicensing from AGPL to MIT is problematic. | 21:53:50 |
| circlebuilder | Nick Sellen if you have a text to toot, I can also post it to Lemmy in Libre Culture and Open Source communities. | 21:54:24 |
| Mariha Kozinska | We can ask Trustroots if they wanted to relicense too (first). | 21:54:42 |
