Emelia Smith

I'm not sure on OSI status, I believe that requires someone from the W3C to submit the license. cc @dmitrizagidulin since you're far more involved with W3C matters than I...

I'd say that's up to someone at the W3C to determine. @plehegar or @timbl come to mind as far as people who might have input here. All I know is...

The thing that specifically did change between the two license versions is the copyright holder, I'd be surprised if that's not a substantial change? In the 2023 document it is:...

To be honest, the reason I opened the issue is because I'm not sure exactly how we'd want to structure this information in this I-D that I don't work on...

I believe I have already: the client authentication mechanism mentioned by name above aren't formally specified — they are given names in RFC7591 (DCR) but the definitions linked to in...

> I would think that you would need to include a password if using client_secret_basic. Right, but that behaviour isn't specified, I think I'd agree you'd need to pass the...

This was also mentioned in this [SocialHub](https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/ability-to-distinguish-individual-users-behind-flag-activities-in-a-privacy-preserving-way/4235) thread to be able to keep the instance actor as the Actor of the Flag activity, but the Flag still has an opaque...

That sounds like a good direction forwards!

@quintessence the soft delete means that the User data actually isn't deleted until some time later, which would allow the investigation to happen.

Correct, nor do any of the bot options