2 ms·
> Four days later, they responded, stating that they had discussed internally and decided to take the site offline. > That concludes our conversation, they too
by AnonHP 6y ago
> Four days later, they responded, stating that they had discussed internally and decided to take the site offline.
> That concludes our conversation, they took down their site and never complied with the license. I think they're not violating it now, but have done for a few years.
This makes me wonder what their thinking was. Did they decide to take it down because of potential/unknown (to them) legal implications of using it for three years without providing a way to get the source? Or did they think this site is done because of legal issues and then go to the drawing board for creating a different site with a lot more changes (to avoid detection) so that they don’t have to comply with this at all?
- dmurray 6y agoSounds more like nobody paid for the service, so they decided not to spend any more time on it.
- knorker 6y ago> This makes me wonder what their thinking was. Did they decide to take it down because of potential/unknown (to them) legal implications of using it for three years without providing a way to get the source? Probably. Maybe combined with asking an actual lawyer who likely would look at the license go NO NO NO NO, SHUT IT DOWN NOW, AND NEVER TOUCH AGPL AGAIN! Speaking from experience.