4 ms·
IIRC (A)GPL stipulates that you need to make available source, on request, to the people who use your version. This is often interpreted as you need to release
by dspillett 6y ago
IIRC (A)GPL stipulates that you need to make available source, on request, to the people who use your version. This is often interpreted as you need to release publicly, but that is not the case. If I'm remembering rightly then the author can't make them give him a copy of the code at this point, but one of their users could. If they have/had no users that care, there is no more that they need to do. Unless the author having visited their site counts as them being a user of the code protected by the license, then it swings back the other way.
- aronpye 6y agoDon’t you always have to provide author attribution and a link to the licence?
- dspillett 6y agoMany less restrictive open source licenses require attribution, that is far from unique to GPL flavours.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agoVisiting the site probably counts as using it. I think to get around that there would need to be a separate paywall
- toyg 6y ago“Visiting the site” does not count as distributing it under the GPL: “ Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying”. If you don’t distribute the work, you don’t need to provide sources.
- justinclift 6y agoThe case here is the AGPL though, not the GPL.
- toyg 6y agodspillet wrote (A)GPL, implying it was about both. As I stated, the gpl itself does not have such requirement.