Conversation
Notices
-
Your tone continues to be unnecessarily adversarial, intentional or not.
Blocking others on your own instance isn't censoring anyone---it's your own personal view of the world. If you are hosting others on your instance, that's a different story, but they have the option to go elsewhere. You can't go to another Facebook or Twitter.
You don't need to make assumptions. Sensitive logs (including lighttpd, haproxy, mailserver, and others) are shred'd hourly. Logs that affect only me (e.g. /var/log/auth logs) are shreded much less frequently. If I want statistics (e.g. article hit count), they're aggregated anonymously before logrotate clobbers it. Other misc. things are cleared via other cronjobs. Sensitive logs are stored on a mount that is encrypted with an ephemeral key: if the server is shut down for some type of forensics, log data will be lost.
Sending everything to /dev/null isn't wise, as it prevents me from finding problems (e.g. 404s); identifying abuse/attacks (especially of mailserver); intrusion prevention (e.g. fail2ban); etc. If an attacker gains access to my server, they will have up to 24h of logs.
EFF's Best Practices for Online Service Providers is a good guide for consideration:
https://www.eff.org/wp/osp
CC BY is the abbreviation. And yes, you're correct, I'm not sure why I was thinking ND. I license all my other works under CC BY-SA; I should probably change the license on this instance as well.
-
> anything that you publish automatically to other instances with the other license, becomes there licensed differently
That isn't how Copyright works. It does not matter in what form a work is conveyed (in this case, through an API); the license remains unchanged without explicit grants from the Copyright holder.
-
Terms of Service are an agreement for those using that service. If you have an account on my instance, you are subject to those terms.
I'm not posting anything into the "public domain": that has a very specific legal meaning.
My notices are published on my instance. If another instance chooses to federate, that's up to them, but it's no different than you choosing to visit my website and download my articles. If you happen to put a license on a public RSS aggregator and subscribe to my website feed on mikegerwitz.com, my works don't get relicensed simply because you've downloaded it and put it onto your site. You're claiming the ability to circumvent copyright simply by subscribing to something. If every instance on GNU Social happened to have different conflicting licensing rules, it wouldn't matter; the originating instance dictates the license of the work.
Now, if I were to create an account on _your_ instance and publish my notices there, I would have agreed to your licensing terms.
There is no network-wide GNU Social license agreement.
-
In your quoting of the TOS: "Operator", as stated on the TOS, refers to the owner of the instance: me. By a user (me) submitting a notice to the Operator (me), the user (me) is granting the Operator (me) a license to do each of things necessary for the purposes of federation.
If you read further down the TOS, you'll see a license grant for all readers. GNU Social dynamically modifies the TOS according to your configured license settings in Admin. Mine now says Attribution-ShareAlike, for example.
So by a user publishing a notice and granting the Operator the right to republish it to other instances, that doesn't mean that those other instances have the right to change that license: they are readers. Aggregators.