7 ms·

The thing I don't get is that this new platform hasn't been officially released to users. Are they really required to make the source code available if it's an

by GranPC 5y ago

The thing I don't get is that this new platform hasn't been officially released to users. Are they really required to make the source code available if it's an internal service, before the official launch?

animal_spirits 5y ago
It had been officially released to users for a short period of time before it was taken down, as the article states. Since it was public, that public use of the code needs to be published as it was when it was public.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  No. AGPL requires to provide source code only to users of the server [1]: It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Also, AGPL does not define a method for providing source code, be it publishing on a web server, sending by email, delivering on a floppy disk via messenger dogs or printing it on a papyrus and sending it with pigeon mail. And lastly, you claim the service was 'officially released'. According to Trump's official statement, the official launch of a service will be in January. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
zarzavat 5y ago
Internal testing: no. Public testing; yes. Launch and release has no legal meaning, gmail was in beta for years. What matters is who can access it?
ksec 5y ago
That is actually an interesting question. Does a non-user of a services have the right to request for the source under the current AGPL 3 legal framework?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  No, code must be provided only to the users of the server running AGPL code [1]: "It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server." [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
  - ksec 5y ago
    Now another question. Lets assume EULA is applicable world wide and enforceable. If you ask a user to sign EULA which agrees to not ask for source code. So in this scenario you cant ask for source code whether you are a user or not?
    - tzs 5y ago
      Your obligation to provide source code comes from your agreement with the copyright owner of the source code. You can make users agree via a EULA not to ask for the source code, but that does not change your obligation under your license from the copyright owner. If your user breaks the EULA and asks for the code you must provide it or you are in breach of your license and the copyright owner could come after you. You could then also cancel that user's service, or do whatever else you normally do when a user breaks your EULA.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        No, I think that conflicts with section 10 of the AGPL where it says > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
        ksec 5y ago
        Thanks. And that is why I asked what I thought was a valid question but likely getting downvoted for morale reason.
    - deleted 5y ago
deadbunny 5y ago
It wasn't internal, it was on the internet. Thus they must comply with the AGPL.
bognition 5y ago
Anyone that signed up and used the service is legally entitled to the source code, even if they are internal users. From reading the article it looks like some external users successfully signed up.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  But what if nobody asked for the source code? Did anybody ask for it?
  - inlined 5y ago
    FTA, they’re very Vocally asked for it
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      I missed that at first reading. Any examples of users "very vocally" asking for it?
      - kuschku 5y ago
        The developers of the original product have been asking very vocally, and they’re also parties in this case, having been harmed by the actions.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        But presumably they weren't users of the product, which is what seems to matter for the claim? The developers of the original product also have the source code already.
        kuschku 5y ago
        The developers of the original product have a right to the source code of all modified versions as well, under these licenses. Which is enough to matter for the claim.
sour-taste 5y ago
From the license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html): Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph Sounds to me like the 'all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network' part doesn't distinguish between an internal service and an external service. If it has users, you must comply with the license. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
rpdillon 5y ago
The article touches on this: > Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website. All the evidence available on the Internet (as of 17:00 US/Eastern on Friday 2021-10-22) indicates that the site was simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration (such as pre-reserving some account names). Once discovered, people merely used the site legitimately to register accounts and use its features. I don't think the idea of a "launch" is present in either the license or copyright law; making the service available for use (which they did, inadvertently, it seems) seems to trigger the requirement.
Igelau 5y ago
I find this part very concerning. I held my nose and voted "against" Trump both times. I don't like the guy. But I really don't like IP trolls. Software patents. SCO. The RIAA. "You wouldn't download a car." The aggression with which people are picking up the pitchforks over this is shocking. It was a test. It was a mistake. People weren't supposed to see it or use it, and it's not up anymore. What damage was even done? It leaves a foul smell around AGPL-licensed projects and Mastodon. I'm deeply discouraged from ever hosting a Mastodon instance if any changes I make to the source are going to summon a lynch mob if I haven't made them public within hours, especially if it's only a test deployment. Even if you think Trump and his fan base are total monsters, don't go forgetting what Nietzsche said about fighting monsters.
- evolve2k 5y ago
  You put it up on a public domain and have open signups, it’s public.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    the AGPL license grants rights only to server users. General 'public' has no business in this. Only those who were able to register on the server may require to be provided with the source code. Note, that the server operator is free to provide the code in ways different from publishing it on GitHub.
- headShrinker 5y ago
  This isn’t royalties, IP, or trolls. This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. I have a right to control the works that I have made. I don’t care who you are, if you blatantly steal my work and claim it as your own you better lawyer up cause I’m coming after you! Just as any software developer would, open-source or not.
  - Igelau 5y ago
    > This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. Which is exactly what SCO were saying. How soon do we forget how much we hate it when the corporate interests take their turn at bat over licensing? If your license permits you to be "that guy", it's clearly not libre. Maybe no one ever claimed AGPL was libre but this is definitely a huge reminder that it's not. Mind, I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the license. My issue is the ruthless animosity with which people suddenly seem to love aggressive software license enforcement. Maybe I'm too old and crusty, but I would hate to be in a position like this, and would hate to put others in the same position. Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
phendrenad2 5y ago
Compromise: Everyone who visited the site is given the source code, and charged with "unauthorized network access". I'm joking, but hey it could actually happen. A journalist is being threatened for right-clicking some DIVs.

by GranPC 5y ago

animal_spirits 5y ago

It had been officially released to users for a short period of time before it was taken down, as the article states. Since it was public, that public use of the code needs to be published as it was when it was public.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
No. AGPL requires to provide source code only to users of the server [1]: It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Also, AGPL does not define a method for providing source code, be it publishing on a web server, sending by email, delivering on a floppy disk via messenger dogs or printing it on a papyrus and sending it with pigeon mail. And lastly, you claim the service was 'officially released'. According to Trump's official statement, the official launch of a service will be in January. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zarzavat 5y ago

Internal testing: no. Public testing; yes. Launch and release has no legal meaning, gmail was in beta for years. What matters is who can access it?

ksec 5y ago

That is actually an interesting question. Does a non-user of a services have the right to request for the source under the current AGPL 3 legal framework?

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
No, code must be provided only to the users of the server running AGPL code [1]: "It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server." [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- ksec 5y ago
  Now another question. Lets assume EULA is applicable world wide and enforceable. If you ask a user to sign EULA which agrees to not ask for source code. So in this scenario you cant ask for source code whether you are a user or not?
  - tzs 5y ago
    Your obligation to provide source code comes from your agreement with the copyright owner of the source code. You can make users agree via a EULA not to ask for the source code, but that does not change your obligation under your license from the copyright owner. If your user breaks the EULA and asks for the code you must provide it or you are in breach of your license and the copyright owner could come after you. You could then also cancel that user's service, or do whatever else you normally do when a user breaks your EULA.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      No, I think that conflicts with section 10 of the AGPL where it says > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
      - ksec 5y ago
        Thanks. And that is why I asked what I thought was a valid question but likely getting downvoted for morale reason.
  - deleted 5y ago

deadbunny 5y ago

It wasn't internal, it was on the internet. Thus they must comply with the AGPL.

bognition 5y ago

Anyone that signed up and used the service is legally entitled to the source code, even if they are internal users. From reading the article it looks like some external users successfully signed up.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
But what if nobody asked for the source code? Did anybody ask for it?
- inlined 5y ago
  FTA, they’re very Vocally asked for it
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I missed that at first reading. Any examples of users "very vocally" asking for it?
    - kuschku 5y ago
      The developers of the original product have been asking very vocally, and they’re also parties in this case, having been harmed by the actions.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        But presumably they weren't users of the product, which is what seems to matter for the claim? The developers of the original product also have the source code already.
        kuschku 5y ago
        The developers of the original product have a right to the source code of all modified versions as well, under these licenses. Which is enough to matter for the claim.

sour-taste 5y ago

From the license (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html): Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph Sounds to me like the 'all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network' part doesn't distinguish between an internal service and an external service. If it has users, you must comply with the license. I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

rpdillon 5y ago

The article touches on this: > Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website. All the evidence available on the Internet (as of 17:00 US/Eastern on Friday 2021-10-22) indicates that the site was simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration (such as pre-reserving some account names). Once discovered, people merely used the site legitimately to register accounts and use its features. I don't think the idea of a "launch" is present in either the license or copyright law; making the service available for use (which they did, inadvertently, it seems) seems to trigger the requirement.

Igelau 5y ago

I find this part very concerning. I held my nose and voted "against" Trump both times. I don't like the guy. But I really don't like IP trolls. Software patents. SCO. The RIAA. "You wouldn't download a car." The aggression with which people are picking up the pitchforks over this is shocking. It was a test. It was a mistake. People weren't supposed to see it or use it, and it's not up anymore. What damage was even done? It leaves a foul smell around AGPL-licensed projects and Mastodon. I'm deeply discouraged from ever hosting a Mastodon instance if any changes I make to the source are going to summon a lynch mob if I haven't made them public within hours, especially if it's only a test deployment. Even if you think Trump and his fan base are total monsters, don't go forgetting what Nietzsche said about fighting monsters.

evolve2k 5y ago
You put it up on a public domain and have open signups, it’s public.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  the AGPL license grants rights only to server users. General 'public' has no business in this. Only those who were able to register on the server may require to be provided with the source code. Note, that the server operator is free to provide the code in ways different from publishing it on GitHub.
headShrinker 5y ago
This isn’t royalties, IP, or trolls. This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. I have a right to control the works that I have made. I don’t care who you are, if you blatantly steal my work and claim it as your own you better lawyer up cause I’m coming after you! Just as any software developer would, open-source or not.
- Igelau 5y ago
  > This is licensing and if you don’t like it you can take a hike cause licensing keeps people fair. Without it everyone could and would take everything and anything protected under copyright. Which is exactly what SCO were saying. How soon do we forget how much we hate it when the corporate interests take their turn at bat over licensing? If your license permits you to be "that guy", it's clearly not libre. Maybe no one ever claimed AGPL was libre but this is definitely a huge reminder that it's not. Mind, I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the license. My issue is the ruthless animosity with which people suddenly seem to love aggressive software license enforcement. Maybe I'm too old and crusty, but I would hate to be in a position like this, and would hate to put others in the same position. Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

phendrenad2 5y ago

Compromise: Everyone who visited the site is given the source code, and charged with "unauthorized network access". I'm joking, but hey it could actually happen. A journalist is being threatened for right-clicking some DIVs.