4 ms·
You also seemed to miss this part of the article, which is very telling beyond just shaming someone > Besides the commit raising questions about Gab’s process
by ggggtez 6y ago
You also seemed to miss this part of the article, which is very telling beyond just shaming someone
> Besides the commit raising questions about Gab’s process for developing secure code, the social media site is also facing criticism for removing the commits from its website. Critics say the move violates terms of the Affero General Public License, which governs Gab’s reuse of Mastodon, an open source software package for hosting social networking platforms.
Gab is likely breaking license agreements by performing this sort of cover up. So yes, this is newsworthy.
- Karunamon 6y agoCorrect me if I’m wrong, but you don’t need a link to the code to comply with the GPL. Providing it on request is still kosher.
- 015a 6y agoGab is likely not breaking license agreements, as long as they provide it upon request. Which was never tested. That's the problem with reporting like this; it jumps to conclusions to justify outrage, while clearly being written by someone who is overworked, underpaid, underexperienced, and only has a cursory understanding of the systems at play. Of course, most people are underexperienced in domains like this, so they rely on traditionally high-quality reporting sites like Ars to provide accurate, precise, and fair reporting. The wording Ars used is accurate; your interpretation of their wording isn't. That's the responsibility journalists have; what they say matters, a lot, because people interpret what they say in different ways. Ars said that they're "being accused" of breaking license agreements. You said they're "likely" breaking license agreements. That's a world of difference; if for no other reason than because one is correct, but useless, and the other is (probably) wrong.