If you are interested in sharing book recommendations with other, or just manage your books, then bookwyrm is great for that! The .world team also has a bookwyrm instance up and running at bookwyrm.world with a community here on lemmy as well at !bookwyrm@lemmy.world. Read Ruuds original post about it here: https://lemmy.world/post/5904792
If you want to join another bookwyrm instance, then head over to joinbookwyrm.com.
Anyway, it's a great place to find books, share books, and find people with similar interests in books! If there is anything that you feel needs to be improved or changed on the bookwyrm.world instance, then contact me!
Bookwyrm is specifically made for booksharing and book reviewing. While lemmy is more general. For instance, this is a link to the "a game of thrones book" https://bookwyrm.world/book/8138/s/a-game-of-thrones. Here you have reviews of the book. You can also add that book to your "to read" list aswell.
I tried so hard to get into Bookwyrm and joined several instances but it really holds no candle to Goodreads in terms of number of users. A single book that is not even that popular will often have hundreds or thousands of reviews on Goodreads. Like this book:
Well yeah, what did you expect? The fediverse is brand new while goodreads is at least 15 years old (without looking it up). I have people from high school on my friends list there and I’m in my late 30s.
It goes without saying that they have more users and therefore more reviews. That stuff doesn’t happen overnight.
Yeah. It is kinda "lacking" in the terms of reviews. But for each goodreads people that join, the more reviews and books we get, as you can import your goodreads library. And knowing the fediverse, it won't be that long, I hope ;P
So read your goodreads reviews, then when you decide "I'll read this one," go to your bookwyrm, "import from goodreads," read it, then review it on bookwyrm. Don't just complain about it, be about it, that's the only way it'll grow.
This looks really great. It's going to need some dedicated book nerds to fill it with content, but those are probably not hard to find around here. I'm in.
Just the fact that you can see the source code does NOT mean it is free software. This project is licensed under the anti-capitalist software license, which is not a free software license.
The Anti-Capitalist Software License is a nonfree license because it extends the four freedoms only to some kinds of organizations, not to all.
From Open source definition:
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
By free software you mean the FSF or OSI definition. Many people won't care, and some of us actively are against corporate leech on free software, which this license helps with.
Does it though? As far as I know, there hasn't been a legal dispute over this license before in a court. It probably wouldn't even hold up in court with its oddly specific cases and vague wording.