3 ms·

While I don't know what this article says (it doesn't load for me), I agree with the title. The github repository isn't updated any more since Oct 11, 2016. [1

While I don't know what this article says (it doesn't load for me), I agree with the title. The github repository isn't updated any more since Oct 11, 2016. [1] Serious question: Is it possible to just stop publishing the source of a GPL2 licensed software? [1] https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram/commits/master https://github.com/DrKLO/Telegram/commits/master

Findus23 10y ago
Update: This url works: http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=129 http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=129 It would be nice if it could be replaced.
throwaway2048 10y ago
if you own the copyright to a peice of code, you are free to relicense it however you want, at any time. Existing code in the wild will keep the license it was distributed with, but nothing obliges you to keep updating it.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  1) GPL does make statements about the output of it (i.e. binary builds, which is distributed over the Google Play Store). The app itself does not mention it's GPL, but Telegram.org does. 2) The old code was GPL, so the new one (unless they rewrote it) is a derived work. I'm not sure the second one applies if it's the original author who relicenses it, but I'm reasonably sure it's at least a legal grey area, and the first one would still be a thing.
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    It is not a legal gray area, this is the basis of a lot of products with open source versions and "pro" versions with extra features that cost money.
    - lucb1e 10y ago
      Alright, what about the first?
- lolikoisuru 10y ago
  The thing is, Telegram only owns portion of the copyright. There are also a few other copyright holders as a result of their commits having been pulled in. Telegram cannot legally relicense the codebase without first getting approval from those people. I really doubt that they have done that and if I'm true the app is still GPL.
lucb1e 10y ago
> While I don't know what this article says (it doesn't load for me) That is strange, first time apache crashed like this in the 5 years I run this blog. Usually it throws an error at least instead of connection refused. Anyway, kicked it back alive. Sorry about that.

Findus23 10y ago

Update: This url works: http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=129 http://lucb1e.com/?p=post&id=129 It would be nice if it could be replaced.

throwaway2048 10y ago

if you own the copyright to a peice of code, you are free to relicense it however you want, at any time. Existing code in the wild will keep the license it was distributed with, but nothing obliges you to keep updating it.

lucb1e 10y ago
1) GPL does make statements about the output of it (i.e. binary builds, which is distributed over the Google Play Store). The app itself does not mention it's GPL, but Telegram.org does. 2) The old code was GPL, so the new one (unless they rewrote it) is a derived work. I'm not sure the second one applies if it's the original author who relicenses it, but I'm reasonably sure it's at least a legal grey area, and the first one would still be a thing.
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  It is not a legal gray area, this is the basis of a lot of products with open source versions and "pro" versions with extra features that cost money.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    Alright, what about the first?
lolikoisuru 10y ago
The thing is, Telegram only owns portion of the copyright. There are also a few other copyright holders as a result of their commits having been pulled in. Telegram cannot legally relicense the codebase without first getting approval from those people. I really doubt that they have done that and if I'm true the app is still GPL.

lucb1e 10y ago

> While I don't know what this article says (it doesn't load for me) That is strange, first time apache crashed like this in the 5 years I run this blog. Usually it throws an error at least instead of connection refused. Anyway, kicked it back alive. Sorry about that.