6 ms·

Can't seem to find a link to the repo on their site.

klint 9y ago
I hope someone posts it soon. This sounds like a dream come true, but I'm a bit weary of punching my SFTP credentials into an app by an unknown company without any idea of what it's actually doing behind the scenes.
irishasaurus 9y ago
No Linux option planned, and no public access to the source-code. That doesn't feel very "open source" to me.
- thefreeman 9y ago
  how can they possibly call it open source without providing the source code. Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access?
  - johnchristopher 9y ago
    > Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access? What ? Why entitled ? I have some WIP and production ready code in some git repo on my company's network and it's MIT licensed but there is absolutely zero obligation to upload it on the internet. Of course I don't go around making website about it so there's that. Pretty sure those guys will upload the source code when they feel like it's the time to do it.
    - masukomi 9y ago
      the GPL requires that you make the code available WHEN you distribute it. they have distributed it, thus yes, we are entitled to it as of the time of distribution, not whenever they feel like it in the future.
      - true_religion 9y ago
        Not really in the way you are implying. You can either distribute it with the binary, or you can distribute it to someone who received a binary once they request it. The GPL doesn't require you post the source on GitHub or the internet at all.
      - bachmeier 9y ago
        The GPL applies to other users. There's no such thing as a license that applies to the person that wrote the code (that would imply that you could sue yourself for violations). They'd only be required to make the source available if they were using someone else's GPL code.
        cyphar 9y ago
        That is incorrect. If a company gives you a copy of the program under the GPL, then they must obey by that license because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license. And you can't call any other license the GPL (modifications are not permitted by the FSF). Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license". Not to mention that you don't know why they went with the GPL. Maybe they used some GPL code and thus have no choice in the license terms. So it would be a matter of the original copyright holders suing them for breach of license.
        zokier 9y ago
        > Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license". If the license promised delivery of source code then of course the author could be sued. But as far as I can tell, GPL (at least v3) makes no such promises. If you disagree, please point in the license text the part that you think applies.
- rubenbe 9y ago
  GPL does not mean that the company has to provide a github repo. Strictly seen, the sources should be provided in case a user requests the them. (IANAL) But I agree, it doesn't feel very "open source"
megido 9y ago
There's a github account, but no repo published :/ https://github.com/GetPublii https://github.com/GetPublii
rhblake 9y ago
It's an Electron app so the source code comes with the package. They've also tweeted "We have a plan release it for Linux with the first stable version" [0] and that a proper source code release is planned. [1] Haven't tried it myself. [0] https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/878563554118561792 https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/878563554118561792 [1] https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/871670397145665537 https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/871670397145665537

I hope someone posts it soon. This sounds like a dream come true, but I'm a bit weary of punching my SFTP credentials into an app by an unknown company without any idea of what it's actually doing behind the scenes.

irishasaurus 9y ago

No Linux option planned, and no public access to the source-code. That doesn't feel very "open source" to me.

thefreeman 9y ago
how can they possibly call it open source without providing the source code. Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access?
- johnchristopher 9y ago
  > Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access? What ? Why entitled ? I have some WIP and production ready code in some git repo on my company's network and it's MIT licensed but there is absolutely zero obligation to upload it on the internet. Of course I don't go around making website about it so there's that. Pretty sure those guys will upload the source code when they feel like it's the time to do it.
  - masukomi 9y ago
    the GPL requires that you make the code available WHEN you distribute it. they have distributed it, thus yes, we are entitled to it as of the time of distribution, not whenever they feel like it in the future.
    - true_religion 9y ago
      Not really in the way you are implying. You can either distribute it with the binary, or you can distribute it to someone who received a binary once they request it. The GPL doesn't require you post the source on GitHub or the internet at all.
    - bachmeier 9y ago
      The GPL applies to other users. There's no such thing as a license that applies to the person that wrote the code (that would imply that you could sue yourself for violations). They'd only be required to make the source available if they were using someone else's GPL code.
      - cyphar 9y ago
        That is incorrect. If a company gives you a copy of the program under the GPL, then they must obey by that license because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license. And you can't call any other license the GPL (modifications are not permitted by the FSF). Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license". Not to mention that you don't know why they went with the GPL. Maybe they used some GPL code and thus have no choice in the license terms. So it would be a matter of the original copyright holders suing them for breach of license.
        zokier 9y ago
        > Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license". If the license promised delivery of source code then of course the author could be sued. But as far as I can tell, GPL (at least v3) makes no such promises. If you disagree, please point in the license text the part that you think applies.
rubenbe 9y ago
GPL does not mean that the company has to provide a github repo. Strictly seen, the sources should be provided in case a user requests the them. (IANAL) But I agree, it doesn't feel very "open source"

megido 9y ago

There's a github account, but no repo published :/ https://github.com/GetPublii https://github.com/GetPublii

rhblake 9y ago

It's an Electron app so the source code comes with the package. They've also tweeted "We have a plan release it for Linux with the first stable version" [0] and that a proper source code release is planned. [1] Haven't tried it myself. [0] https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/878563554118561792 https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/878563554118561792 [1] https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/871670397145665537 https://twitter.com/GetPublii/status/871670397145665537