I have a cousin.
# secondomiacusina © # miacuginadiceche ©
Like many Italians, I have a cousin in the USA. And like so many cousins in the US, you've basically started talking to us again since the internet has existed. But the important thing is not that the cousin can be a divine thing, it is that she is a lawyer by trade.
And not just any lawyer: he deals with software. And for some years now he has been a "corporate" lawyer, that is, he works for a company. German. What does an ERP do. You will have understood who I am talking about.
Anyway, since I saw her online, I chatted with her tonight. And while we were chatting, I asked her what you think about the Trump story. I unveil the bias: she is engaged to an Israeli girl. So he "does not love" Trump and his fascism, even if it seems that Trump is going strong in Israel (according to his girlfriend).
But that's not the point either. The point is that on a legal level it is not said that the authors of Mastodon have the knife on the side of the handle . When I asked her the question, her answer was:
"Well, is kinda complex".
And when an American lawyer answers like that, he means either that it would be fucking expensive or that it doesn't necessarily work.
As I understand it, there are several problems to be addressed, including a legal form admitted to the stock exchange, which we would define as “Company Wanna Marchi” but they call SPAC. But let's get down to business.
The first thing that should be established is whether the license in question must be framed as "copyright" (and therefore falls under the laws of the case), as "contract litigation" (and therefore falls under the laws of the case), and so on.
To get an idea, you can take a look at this page:
Contributors to Wikimedia projects 
If you notice, many of these lawsuits end up in the Supreme Court, and there is a reason: while in the US copyright and contract laws are federal and very well defined laws, those on open source do not have "clear & clean ”behind, and therefore are considered customary laws, in a system that is based on common law.
And here the problems would begin. First of all, it is necessary to wait for the platform to be online, that is, for it to be offered to the public. As long as he's just using it for himself and his party, Trump isn't violating any license: he's just any guy privately using an open source platform.
But let's go ahead and divide the two cases:
- obtain compliance with the license, and Trump admits it is Mastodon and publishes the code. (not a big deal).
- Obtain substantial compensation.
The second point is crucial, because as you have seen it is a complex subject that is being discussed in the Supreme Court.
And this implies and requires, at a spanometric estimate, at least $ 1M, about a million in lawyers' fees. And there are many reasons for this:
- for one thing, the software may have been provided by a foundation, such as the Trump Foundation. Obtaining compensation from a non-profit organization is difficult.
- Trump could argue that it was the only way left for him to enjoy a constitutional right, since all mainstream social media had banned him.
- Trump could argue that yes, he violated the AGPL, and therefore now provides the code and cites the source, but this is the case of a POLITICIAN, who has been deprived of "the right" to use other social networks to talk to people .
This would not negate the idea that Trump should publish the author of the software and any changes made. But to get compensation in these cases you would need multiple teams of lawyers who are experienced in different branches of law. The problem that Trump could pose is, first of all, whether the condition of being politicians and being banned from other platforms is a violation of rights, in which case, he was wrong to just take the software, but he was forced from the circumstances, therefore, the compensation (if any) must take this into account.
Nor is it taken for granted that Trump's aim is not to obtain a sentence that says this, even at the cost of paying a few bucks, and then go to the assault of Facebook, Twitter & co.
But from the point of view of the defenders of Free Software, it would be a very risky battle: it would be about spending huge sums on legal assistance, only to discover that yes, Trump releases the source and accepts that it is Mastodon, but since he was trying to enjoy a right, he does not have to pay anything. And since maybe the platform changes everything before going live, even less. I warn you immediately: if they choose to use Pleroma, given the political preferences of @lain, there will be no cause.
Surely, however, it could be argued that the interface and the software are too similar to those of Mastodon, which means using the license as a Copyright litigation and not as a contract litigation.
The objection that would come almost immediately is that the same interface of Mastodon is too similar to that of Tritter, and we would speak of "fair use" or not. And here, too, he should definitely release the code and publish its source, but paying damages is almost certainly out of the question.
According to his cousin, Trump's risk, if anything, is to have trouble with the stock exchange authorities at the time of the IPO, because by declaring that the software is proprietary, Trump's company has declared that it owns an asset that it does not own.
But not even this is so obvious: the company called DWAC, which Trump owns, did not have to undergo the checks that occur during the IPOs, because it is a SPAC. In the USA, it seems, it is possible to list container companies on the stock exchange, for the sole purpose of raising funds and seeing if the market would be interested. If you are interested, then the real IPO takes place, that is, the listing on the stock exchange with the appropriate financial requirements.
If you declare a company as SPAC, that is, you go to the stock exchange, take the loans, but you do not meet the very strong requirements that are needed to be listed. Even to declare in a smoky way the assets that you do not own "but intend to own in the future", if you close before operating on the market, "it is passable".
Ultimately, that is, to a SPAC it is possible to declare the intention to go live on the market with proprietary software, while using an opensource software momentarily, or as a POC, because the purpose of a SPAC is to raise funds and interest to then do the real IPO. (even if today the instrument is very abused to transfer black funds). Trump, if he has any problems with that, he will have them at the time of the hypothetical IPO.
If SPAC never becomes a true public company (Trump has a history of disasters made using SPAC-containers), or if it goes bankrupt before, it has a microscopic chance of having to pay no compensation.
Moral of the story: according to my cousin © , it is not at all obvious that a real lawsuit against DWAC would be born, because it would be very expensive, but the chances of returning the costs of the lawsuit are very few, and it is difficult to predict how much it could cost because it depends. all from which and how many objections will be raised.
In short, it could happen that Trump uses the case for the sole purpose of having the judges write that it is a desperate attempt to have freedom of speech and freedom to campaign after the ostracism, and since he has received funding for 400M, he has all the money needed to support the FSF offensive.
Once you get a single ruling that says "yes, your rights were violated, but you still don't have the right to break a license / copyright / contract / quelchele '", Trump could calmly plead the SPAC bankruptcy and then go on the assault. of Twitter, Facebook & co, using the ruling.
At the expense of others, as in his style. But at the same time, no one will want to pay this price to Trump.
So don't assume there's going to be a lawsuit.
The FSF also has its own lawyers, and they could advise the Mastodon programmers to use other means, such as ostracizing all instances, which has already worked very well against gab.ai and against Byoblu.
Having cousins is convenient sometimes.
(And you have no idea of the lust it feels to start, in good faith, a period by writing "according to my cousin ©", knowing that it's true. And that it makes sense.)