4 ms·
I mean, each time you distribute the software you are bound to the license terms for that version, so if you use the same license through time, you have to give
by Latty 6y ago
I mean, each time you distribute the software you are bound to the license terms for that version, so if you use the same license through time, you have to give that much history.
Beyond that, it clearly becomes very murky, especially when it comes to git. Is squashing some commits suddenly against the license? Do I have to commit every time I type a character? There is no obvious smallest unit except "the commit the developer decides on", which could then be everything since the last release, resulting in the status quo.
I guess there could be a license where if you changed to that license, it required the history, but it would seem a bit pointless, as inherently at that point the person choosing the license could just choose a different one.
- akkartik 6y agoDo similar questions come up even for the current snapshot? Are you required to provide comments? Meaningful type and variable names?
- eredengrin 6y agoNot a lawyer, but I did work for a short period for a company that was distributing a modified linux kernel and therefore had to release the source. In my time there, there were a lot of discussions (some involving lawyers) about whether (and how) we could reasonably obfuscate the source before releasing it. Not sure how those conversations ended since I left before they were done, but it seems it's not clear cut at this point.
- akkartik 6y agodataflow's comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24019778#24025779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24019778#24025779) seems to answer this, and https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5759/code-obfuscation-and-gpl3/5760#5760 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5759/code-obf... elaborates: FOSS licenses require distributing the form you use to make modifications to your program. To do anything else opens one up to legal liability.
- jlokier 6y agoI struggle to imagine how this definition in the Linux kernel's license: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. can be seen as "not clear cut" with regard to whether obfuscated source code counts. It plainly rules out obfuscation. (Unless you genuinely prefer editing the obfuscated version. Which you provably don't if obfuscation is done just for release.)
- eredengrin 6y agoWhat is preventing a company from hiring a developer or two for very cheap to "work" on the obfuscated code, but not do any real work (or better yet, just bundle it into an existing job description of a qa member or a dev on some other team or something)? How would you prove in court that the devs "working" on the obfuscated version weren't the ones doing the work? It brings into question which version is actually preferred over the other, and how do you answer that? Based off number of commits or changes on the branches? Obfuscated version could easily be gamed to have more commits, and given that it's obfuscated, it might have even more individual changes just by default. I imagine there are some companies that think these questions are worth pondering.
- numpad0 6y agoI believe the gist of GPL is you supply the source code that produced the binary object through your compilation processes to whoever received the binary as you were licensed it as part of the sale or distribution. You are not obliged to supply any intermediate files, media assets, manuals, or technical supports as part of the licensing, though you are not restricted from doing so(you absolutely can charge full prices for GPL’d software) Building from source but cleansing it before release or supplying irrelevant intermediate files, even de-complied files as sources... to “protect valuable assets”, those had been tried and are generally considered license/copyright violations.