3 ms·

IANAL but it seems you could make the argument that by not making the modified source available under the AGPLv3 they would clearly be in violation of the AGPLv

IANAL but it seems you could make the argument that by not making the modified source available under the AGPLv3 they would clearly be in violation of the AGPLv3 license which would negate their claim that the source code is licensed to them. Wouldn't they need to currently be in compliance with the license in order to excise the rights conferred by the license?

danillonunes 5y ago
Yes, I meant to say they can claim it's licensed to then as long as they follow all the license terms. Also IANAL but I believe they can make the claim that they are not violating the license terms since the site was not meant to be publicly available and the access that some people obtained was not authorized (and I think this is a strong argument since they blocked the access as soon as it was discovered). One can say that the mere fact that the site was accessible, even if unintentional, was enough to configure it to be distributed, and therefore required to follow the full license terms (in fact, I think this is the position that GNU takes), but I don't think this argument would be so strong in an actual legal battle,