3 ms·

Not necessarily. If they were to comply fully they’d need to release appropriately licensed source code for all previous versions of the site too. As in, the OP

Not necessarily. If they were to comply fully they’d need to release appropriately licensed source code for all previous versions of the site too. As in, the OP could say: “I visited your site X days ago, please provide the source for the code I ran”.

danhor 6y ago
But taking it offline doesn't solve that issue. OP can still say that.
aronpye 6y ago
Do the GPL licences specify any archival requirements? I would have thought that when you stop distributing the product containing the source code the responsibility to continue hosting the source code ends too?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Do the GPL licences specify any archival requirements? I would have thought that when you stop distributing the product containing the source code the responsibility to continue hosting the source code ends too? It doesn't cure the past violation, but a whole lot of legal importance rest on knowing violation, and continuing after being informed of the violation can, in addition to being evidence that you violation after the notice was intentional, weaken your argument that the violation before was not, so stopping a violation once you are informed of it reduces, though does not entirely eliminate, the legal risk. So, a hard stop on use when you are informed your currente use may be illegal is a perfectly sensible response in most cases even if you are evaluating whether your use was illegal and whether, if it was, you should, in the long term, either stop the use permanently or conform to whatever legal requirements attach to use.
teddyh 6y ago
No, that’s not how it works. If someone runs a web site with code released under the AGPL, but they have removed the source code download link, they have violated the AGPL, and therefore violated copyright law. There is no way out for them by offering to send source code after the fact. The copyright holder can choose not to pursue the matter if the web site hosters send the source code, but that has nothing to do with the requirements in the actual AGPL.
- coddle-hark 6y ago
  You’re right, thanks for the correction.
- choeger 6y ago
  The AGPL requires you to provide a link? That would be weird. AFAIK, the GPL does not demand that. It suffices to send the source code on demand. Besides that, what would happen if your link would stop working? Where I work, we use a lot of free software to build our product (various licenses) and I am happy to hand over the sources of these libraries to anyone asking. So far, no one has asked, though.
  - coddle-hark 6y ago
    > It suffices to send the source code on demand. Not quite. From [1]: > If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. So if you don’t send the source along with the binaries then you need to make a written offer to your users. However, [2] states that: > If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well. So you can’t publish the binaries online but only distribute the source via physical media, for example. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOff... [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSour...
  - hansvm 6y ago
    It requires you to prominently state the license choice and some consequences thereof, and if you don't provide a link or a physical copy of the source then you must proactively provide a notification that the source is available (there are constraints on that notification, but I don't remember them off the top of my head). It definitely does not suffice to simply send the source code on demand without additional up-front work.
  - teddyh 6y ago
    To be precise, the AGPL requires that, if such a link is present, you may not remove it. And yes, this is precisely why AGPL exists and GPL is not always sufficient.

danhor 6y ago

But taking it offline doesn't solve that issue. OP can still say that.

aronpye 6y ago

Do the GPL licences specify any archival requirements? I would have thought that when you stop distributing the product containing the source code the responsibility to continue hosting the source code ends too?

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Do the GPL licences specify any archival requirements? I would have thought that when you stop distributing the product containing the source code the responsibility to continue hosting the source code ends too? It doesn't cure the past violation, but a whole lot of legal importance rest on knowing violation, and continuing after being informed of the violation can, in addition to being evidence that you violation after the notice was intentional, weaken your argument that the violation before was not, so stopping a violation once you are informed of it reduces, though does not entirely eliminate, the legal risk. So, a hard stop on use when you are informed your currente use may be illegal is a perfectly sensible response in most cases even if you are evaluating whether your use was illegal and whether, if it was, you should, in the long term, either stop the use permanently or conform to whatever legal requirements attach to use.

teddyh 6y ago

No, that’s not how it works. If someone runs a web site with code released under the AGPL, but they have removed the source code download link, they have violated the AGPL, and therefore violated copyright law. There is no way out for them by offering to send source code after the fact. The copyright holder can choose not to pursue the matter if the web site hosters send the source code, but that has nothing to do with the requirements in the actual AGPL.

coddle-hark 6y ago
You’re right, thanks for the correction.
choeger 6y ago
The AGPL requires you to provide a link? That would be weird. AFAIK, the GPL does not demand that. It suffices to send the source code on demand. Besides that, what would happen if your link would stop working? Where I work, we use a lot of free software to build our product (various licenses) and I am happy to hand over the sources of these libraries to anyone asking. So far, no one has asked, though.
- coddle-hark 6y ago
  > It suffices to send the source code on demand. Not quite. From [1]: > If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. So if you don’t send the source along with the binaries then you need to make a written offer to your users. However, [2] states that: > If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well. So you can’t publish the binaries online but only distribute the source via physical media, for example. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOff... [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSour...
- hansvm 6y ago
  It requires you to prominently state the license choice and some consequences thereof, and if you don't provide a link or a physical copy of the source then you must proactively provide a notification that the source is available (there are constraints on that notification, but I don't remember them off the top of my head). It definitely does not suffice to simply send the source code on demand without additional up-front work.
- teddyh 6y ago
  To be precise, the AGPL requires that, if such a link is present, you may not remove it. And yes, this is precisely why AGPL exists and GPL is not always sufficient.