4 ms·

>Is every visiting rando from the Internet a user? Yes. > If a person has five sock-puppet accounts, is that five users or one? Each of those sock-puppet acc

>Is every visiting rando from the Internet a user? Yes. > If a person has five sock-puppet accounts, is that five users or one? Each of those sock-puppet accounts can request the source, so 5. No wait, it's still a single human being, so 1. Either way, it doesn't matter. They can request the source, and they should get it. Are users of the service entitled to free-of-charge access to the source code? No, with limits. https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.... >GPLv2 permits “a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution”. This fee must be reasonable.

colejohnson66 5y ago
> Each of those sock-puppet accounts can request the source, so 5. No wait, it's still a single human being, so 1. Either way, it doesn't matter. They can request the source, and they should get it. The answer is complicated. If I hack into a company and steal a binary for an internal tool (that uses GPL licensed stuff), I can’t demand the source code because I was not authorized to use said binary. If its a beta not designed to be used by the public, it’s not clear how it will go. The users weren’t authorized to use it but it was easily accessible. See also: the horrific CFAA Act
- kazinator 5y ago
  OK. Now, further, suppose you're the member of some copyleft outrage group and have heard that someone broke into a company and obtained an internal tool based on GPL-ed code. You jump up and down and scream that the person be given the source code in 30 days, or you will somehow terminate their license to use that code. Does that fit what we are looking at here?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    From my outside view as a non-lawyer: probably
kazinator 5y ago
That's interesting; so if I have a developer make $50K worth of changes to some GPLv2 program, I still can't charge more for distributing it than the cost of the distribution errand. The way you get paid is not to do the changes until/unless you have some work contract in place beforehand. If you've already made the changes, you mustn't try to get paid for them. I didn't even notice that all these years.
- fineIllregister 5y ago
  I think that's a misreading. That clause only limits additional fees charged to existing users for access to the source code. You can make the changes and charge whatever you want for the software. When the user requests the source code, as is their right, for that you can only charge the physical costs. The intent is to prevent expensive source code fees from being used as an end-around the source disclosure requirements. It also makes sure the distributor can cover the cosrs, but no more than that.
  - kazinator 5y ago
    > I think that's a misreading. Right? But since that's a legal document, possible misreadings can end up exploited somehow. Even something like an ambiguous comma can be at the crux of a dispute https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.htm...
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  You can release your changes under a proprietary license, then relicense as GPL when you receive money. If you don't release it into general availability, you can simply revoke it.
kazinator 5y ago
> >Is every visiting rando from the Internet a user? > Yes. According to what legal doctrine, where, though? The "user" is a party in the license contract, so that requires a concrete, identifiable legal entity --- or so I would naively think, IANAL and all.

colejohnson66 5y ago

> Each of those sock-puppet accounts can request the source, so 5. No wait, it's still a single human being, so 1. Either way, it doesn't matter. They can request the source, and they should get it. The answer is complicated. If I hack into a company and steal a binary for an internal tool (that uses GPL licensed stuff), I can’t demand the source code because I was not authorized to use said binary. If its a beta not designed to be used by the public, it’s not clear how it will go. The users weren’t authorized to use it but it was easily accessible. See also: the horrific CFAA Act

kazinator 5y ago
OK. Now, further, suppose you're the member of some copyleft outrage group and have heard that someone broke into a company and obtained an internal tool based on GPL-ed code. You jump up and down and scream that the person be given the source code in 30 days, or you will somehow terminate their license to use that code. Does that fit what we are looking at here?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  From my outside view as a non-lawyer: probably

kazinator 5y ago

That's interesting; so if I have a developer make $50K worth of changes to some GPLv2 program, I still can't charge more for distributing it than the cost of the distribution errand. The way you get paid is not to do the changes until/unless you have some work contract in place beforehand. If you've already made the changes, you mustn't try to get paid for them. I didn't even notice that all these years.

fineIllregister 5y ago
I think that's a misreading. That clause only limits additional fees charged to existing users for access to the source code. You can make the changes and charge whatever you want for the software. When the user requests the source code, as is their right, for that you can only charge the physical costs. The intent is to prevent expensive source code fees from being used as an end-around the source disclosure requirements. It also makes sure the distributor can cover the cosrs, but no more than that.
- kazinator 5y ago
  > I think that's a misreading. Right? But since that's a legal document, possible misreadings can end up exploited somehow. Even something like an ambiguous comma can be at the crux of a dispute https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.htm...
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
You can release your changes under a proprietary license, then relicense as GPL when you receive money. If you don't release it into general availability, you can simply revoke it.

kazinator 5y ago

> >Is every visiting rando from the Internet a user? > Yes. According to what legal doctrine, where, though? The "user" is a party in the license contract, so that requires a concrete, identifiable legal entity --- or so I would naively think, IANAL and all.