> Diaspora, Inc. will not distribute your Contribution to any third party under any license without also requiring that third party to also make your Contribution available to the public under the same license.
I'm not sure but it sounds like that might prevent them from closed-source dual-licensing arrangements. I suppose that doesn't preclude them from building their own proprietary extensions to the Diaspora software for their own hosted services, although the agreement also states:
> Diaspora, Inc. will distribute the Diaspora™ Software, as a whole, under version 3 or later of the AGPL.
If extensions are considered part of the software "as a whole" then they might not even be able to do that.
I really hope you guys "make it".
You can classify readers in two groups: those who get severely annoyed by (supposedly) "small" mistakes like this, and those who don't notice that a mistake exists.
If this is true, then as a professional, you should always make sure to fix those mistakes. By any stretch of the imagination, Businessweek probably considers itself to be a professional publication; it'd do them well to have a more thorough editing process.
(this reminds me of when I wrote a paper on the Hindenburg disaster in college, and instead of air ship, I wrote air shit. The instructor was merciful.)
Also, I don't consider your observation to be a nitpick at all. A nitpick would be to urge someone to avoid using "lorry" in a sentence because the publication is aimed towards a non-British audience.
All that said, I'm still rooting for their core mission. Social networking deserves to be an open protocol, not a closed service.
It's also the title of a very good science fiction novel that I would say treats the word without negative connotations.
I would HOPE that people would learn from it, and end up with a slightly better vocabulary, and be thankful for it.
On the flipside, it's NOT a commonly used word, so SEO for it (at least for the name) should be drop dead easy. A search for Diaspora should contain either a wiki link to a disambiguation page, or an article about them. That's about as good as you can hope for, SEO wise, though I obviously have to concede that the name fails the obvious pronounceability test, but as more and more of our interactions are relegated to clicks, that's becoming less of an issue than it used to be.
Though this only really works if you're doing something orthogonal to the original word and build enough of a brand to make it stick.
Now I understand that my experience is just not that statistically relevant, but that's what I remember the most from the site - not being able to actually use it is not a good user experience
I have used Diaspora's site for a while and prefer it to Facebook and Google+. The problem is trying to maintain three separate social networks. Since most of the people I like to keep up with are on FB and G+, my use of Diaspora has slowed down over the past year or so.
Only times I visit is when linked, and it's often some OSS-guru who has written something there but I dont ever use it, nor does anyone I know, not even remotely.
Each person has a 'private' G+ (apps) account; we share stuff, have threaded conversations, etc - it's WAY better than email for a variety of things, and all the conversations remain limited to people from our organization.
It's totally not what G+ was intended for, but it works well.
Google Hangouts, while being buggy as hell and locking up constantly (at least on OS X), are still unrivaled in the video chat / desktop sharing space.
I don't trust Facebook with my photos. At any moment they could make a deliberate privacy change and expose private family photos to the Internet.
I value that privacy, and although Google might one day make a mistake and accidentally open a security hole, they don't have a history of deliberately reducing users privacy without their express consent.
All my family are signed up, so G+ is no longer an empty ghost town for me. My 'friends' on the other hand are still all on Facebook. I'm just a lurker now on FB.
These are average, non-technical men and women in their 20s and early 30s mostly.
The web has no attention span. You're either brand-new and hyped beyond realism, or ancient and boring.
At least near as I can tell without signing up.
I know a tiny number of geeks who are on identi.ca, and a small but larger number of people including both geeks and non-geeks on Diaspora. Maybe I'm atypical?
The goal of diaspora is to make it so that you can run it on your own server, but they assume most folk won't want to do that.
The redesigned profiles seem a little full-page-bokeh-background, Path-circular-profile-image, Pinterest-masonry heavy.
Not bad styles in their own right, but it feels as if borrowed from the other hottest sites around.
Also, what's the deal with the fake-vintage effect on the pictures? Is it their lame corporate way of attempting to be "hip"?
give her some love for being awesome! http://www.aimeebrodeur.com
Oh well, back to Facebook.
Are Google, Facebook, Twitter users really concerned about this? I know people make a noise about privacy and data protection - but would this make you change platform?
Frankly, when you 'fix' Facebook's privacy issues, much of what people like about it doesn't work anymore.
e.g. People love to look up and keep tabs on old friends and flames on facebook. But you can't really do that with privacy settings that hide location, history and profile pictures by default, nor with 'groups' that allow those old friends/flames to share their updates/pictures only with their current friends/flames.
Higher-privacy is almost self-defeating for a social network with Facebook-style use.
Though it can be pretty key for things like Linked-In, where updates are less frequent, you don't have overlapping levels of formality between 'contacts', privacy is more-valued in that context, etc.
Then nothing happened. The user base stagnated. I am unsure if it was because the site was glitch ridden. Or people just do not care about privacy. Words are one thing, but actions speak. Many of my facebook friends will post anti-facebook privacy news links. Yet, they have not joined Diaspora or have left facebook.
It is interesting that they are in YC though.
I've noticed quite a lot of people tried to join Diaspora, but were stuck on waiting lists. Not sure if that's still happening, but I think it constituted some serious self-foot-shooting. If anyone's still having this problem, I think diasp.org will let you sign up.
[Edit] Softer tone.
I've noticed it a lot lately; mostly in the NY Times.
examples include: email. web. voip. etc.
I'd love to tinker with it but I know whatever I do will probably break it when they update their code.