APx is finally available on crates.io / docs.rs

[silverpill@mitra.social]

APx is finally available on crates.io / docs.rs

https://docs.rs/apx_sdk/latest/apx_sdk/

This is an ActivityPub library used internally in Mitra and in other my projects.

Unlike some other ActivityPub libraries, this library is low-level. It doesn't restrict what databases or frameworks could be used, and doesn't care about object types or properties. There are only URIs, keys, signatures, JSON documents and HTTP requests.
It also contains primitives for building nomadic applications (FEP-ef61).

The license is AGPL-3, but I might consider changing it to a more permissive one.

#apx #activitypub #rust

[julian@community.nodebb.org]

silverpill@mitra.social nice job! Congratulations on the release 🙂 now you must maintain it for free forever.

[silverpill@mitra.social]

@julian I will 😆

[barrettsclub@hachyderm.io]

@silverpill this looks fantastic! but yea, a permissive license is almost necessary for adoption within the Rust community

if it's primarily for you, though, that's completely fine ;D

[silverpill@mitra.social]

@barrettsclub It is not only for me, but I like free software and GPL is quite popular among fedi devs. I can remember 8 server implementations written in Rust and apparently all of them are (A)GPL:

Lemmy, lotide, buzzrelay, hatsu, AodeRelay, shops, Enigmatick, Ibis

[barrettsclub@hachyderm.io]

@silverpill you're right binaries are popular for copyleft

...but libraries aren't due to ecosystem-wide static linking

it's easy to fall into that trap, so most devs just don't use copyleft libs

[silverpill@mitra.social]

@barrettsclub What do you mean by ecosystem-wide static linking?

As far as I know, if the binary is copyleft, than you don't need to worry about copyleft dependencies.

[phnt@fluffytail.org]

@silverpill @barrettsclub If you library is under GPL and the library is statically linked, then also that final binary must be GPL in order to not violate the libraries license. That's why libraries are usually under LGPL which allows statically linking. AGPL is mostly GPL with an added clause which forces users (administrators of a service) of a software accessible over a network to publish the source code also accessible over the network, or point to repositories of the software, if it is unmodified.

Examples:
Patching Mastodon to remove the URL of the instance from the UA and not publishing that modified source is a violation of the license.
Running patched Pleroma and pointing to the mainline repositories is also a violation of the license.
Statically linking an (A)GPL library to a program that isn't GPL-compatible is also a violation of the libraries license. Dynamically linking the same library is not.

[phnt@fluffytail.org]

@silverpill @barrettsclub To add to the AGPL and GPL differences: If Pleroma/Mastodon was GPL (not AGPL) and you were running patched versions, you could do the old "come to my office to get the source code" trick. That's basically the thing that AGPL prohibits.

[scott@loves.tech]

@silverpill One downside (or upside) of having it (A)GPL is that you limit what software it can be used in. For example, it cannot be used in software with an MIT or Apache 2.0 License. So GPL and AGPL prevent other open source projects from using it. This may be desired. Just pointing it out. You might consider licensing it as LGPL if you want wider distribution though. It depends on what your priorities are.

Another option is to release it under (A)GPL and then allow approved open source projects to license and redistribute it as MIT License, but only if they incorporate it into their software before release. They can't release the libraries as MIT, but they could release their software which includes your libraries as MIT. It reduces some protection against your code being used in proprietary projects, but it would allow permissive licensed projects to use it.

[silverpill@mitra.social]

@scott Wider distribution and supporting free software are both my priorities.
Today, most Rust servers are (A)GPL licensed. I expect that fedi developers will continue to favor copyleft licenses, so I released the library under AGPLv3.

If I meet someone who wants to use this library in a MIT/Apache licensed project, we can talk about changing the license. Otherwise, AGPLv3 seems to be a good fit.

cc @phnt @barrettsclub

[barrettsclub@hachyderm.io]

@silverpill @scott @phnt sounds good - like I said, the licensing is totally up to you!

personally, I prefer permissive licenses over copyleft stuff in all my projects. for me, it's a lot of extra work + research time that isn't on the codebase...

note that, in Rust, it's sometimes *a lot* of extra work, so do be mindful that you might limit adoption and widespread usage. if that's what you're aiming for (in terms of corporate/private usage), it's probably a good pick! :D

you might also provide a dynamically linked MIT wrapper w/ `cargo-add-dynamic`. just saves everyone some time lol https://crates.io/crates/cargo-add-dynamic