5 ms·

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

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.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  The articles suggests they did: > However, when you put any site on the Internet licensed under AGPLv3, the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code, and Trump's Group is currently ignoring their very public requests for it.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Ah ok - any citations for them demanding it?
    - rpdillon 5y ago
      Not in the article, no. Feel free to take a look!
    - xbar 5y ago
      Yes.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        Where?
- teddyh 5y ago
  > But what if nobody asked for the source code? That doesn’t matter. The regular GPL demands that (at the least) a written offer of source code on request is provided along the binaries. If (at the least) no such offer is provided, the GPL has been violated. The AGPL, additionally, requires that web-accessible software have a “download source code” link on the web site. If the original software had such a link, but no such link is present on the web site in question, the AGPL has been violated. In no case is it necessary for the end user to ask for the source code and be denied. Doing this is a pure nicety on the part of the user, offering violators a way out of being sued by that individual user, which does not have to be offered.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    OK, but what damages would a court be likely to assign to this severe error? What is the typical punishment for such license violations?

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.
rpdillon 5y ago
The articles suggests they did: > However, when you put any site on the Internet licensed under AGPLv3, the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code, and Trump's Group is currently ignoring their very public requests for it.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Ah ok - any citations for them demanding it?
  - rpdillon 5y ago
    Not in the article, no. Feel free to take a look!
  - xbar 5y ago
    Yes.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Where?
teddyh 5y ago
> But what if nobody asked for the source code? That doesn’t matter. The regular GPL demands that (at the least) a written offer of source code on request is provided along the binaries. If (at the least) no such offer is provided, the GPL has been violated. The AGPL, additionally, requires that web-accessible software have a “download source code” link on the web site. If the original software had such a link, but no such link is present on the web site in question, the AGPL has been violated. In no case is it necessary for the end user to ask for the source code and be denied. Doing this is a pure nicety on the part of the user, offering violators a way out of being sued by that individual user, which does not have to be offered.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  OK, but what damages would a court be likely to assign to this severe error? What is the typical punishment for such license violations?