4 ms·

It says in the article that it was publicly available

by bibrye 5y ago

tolleydbg 5y ago
I think this may be carelessly worded in the article. It was publicly accessible, but I don't think it was intended to be publicly available to anyone who wasn't developing it. Am I misremembering the reporting on this?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bibrye 5y ago
  > I don't think it was intended We can speculate as to whether the developers made a mistake or not, but it was publicly accessible, putting it in violation of the licensing terms.
  - tolleydbg 5y ago
    It isn't an issue of whether the developers made an error or not, but whether this constitutes a "release". Both in terms of the license, and the general legality of the situation. I think they would have a hard time showing this was.
    - bibrye 5y ago
      It was distributed under AGPL3 to users interacting with it remotely through a computer network. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 It's not a matter of whether or not the developers meant to release it.
      - tolleydbg 5y ago
        Section 5, which they are accused of violating, specifically mentions a release of the software in item (b). Item (c) does provide some ambiguity, but given that the access was unauthorized, regardless of how bad the OpSec was in the part of the developers, I can't imagine a judge enforcing a discovery subpoena. They may have had a case that it wasn't malicious access if they didn't use Trump's name as a handle and post "Pig Poop Balls" meme. Software licenses apply to releases, and it is not clear this a release. This is the legal question I am asking about, i.e. Does the developers making this publicly accessible for testing constitute a release?
        bibrye 5y ago
        No, software licenses apply to distribution of of software. The developers made this publicly accessible to users interacting with it remotely through a computer network, in violation of the license. What the developers consider a "release" and their incompetence is irrelevant
        tolleydbg 5y ago
        A release and a distribution of a product have almost the same legal definition, but in both cases, the definition includes the product being available "for the consumer." If the license is poorly written to include anything else, then it is likely non-binding. But I think it is clear that his was not a public release for the intended audience, and I think it is entirely relevant what state the site was in when the alleged violations occurred. I'm not asking about whether or not they violated AGPL on a narrow interpretation of the license from a single clause, but whether that caveat in the license is enforceable in this situation. I'm thinking they will have a hard time showing that this constituted a release or distribution under US law. I was just wanting someone with more legal experience than me to weigh in.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        The AGPL license explicitly covers this edge case, it describes the release of software as "a publicly available network server". Whether or not you consider this a 'release' is irrelevant, the requirement for distributing source code still applies. See for yourself: "If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

It says in the article that it was publicly available

by bibrye 5y ago

It says in the article that it was publicly available

I think this may be carelessly worded in the article. It was publicly accessible, but I don't think it was intended to be publicly available to anyone who wasn't developing it. Am I misremembering the reporting on this?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bibrye 5y ago
> I don't think it was intended We can speculate as to whether the developers made a mistake or not, but it was publicly accessible, putting it in violation of the licensing terms.
- tolleydbg 5y ago
  It isn't an issue of whether the developers made an error or not, but whether this constitutes a "release". Both in terms of the license, and the general legality of the situation. I think they would have a hard time showing this was.
  - bibrye 5y ago
    It was distributed under AGPL3 to users interacting with it remotely through a computer network. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13 It's not a matter of whether or not the developers meant to release it.
    - tolleydbg 5y ago
      Section 5, which they are accused of violating, specifically mentions a release of the software in item (b). Item (c) does provide some ambiguity, but given that the access was unauthorized, regardless of how bad the OpSec was in the part of the developers, I can't imagine a judge enforcing a discovery subpoena. They may have had a case that it wasn't malicious access if they didn't use Trump's name as a handle and post "Pig Poop Balls" meme. Software licenses apply to releases, and it is not clear this a release. This is the legal question I am asking about, i.e. Does the developers making this publicly accessible for testing constitute a release?
      - bibrye 5y ago
        No, software licenses apply to distribution of of software. The developers made this publicly accessible to users interacting with it remotely through a computer network, in violation of the license. What the developers consider a "release" and their incompetence is irrelevant
        tolleydbg 5y ago
        A release and a distribution of a product have almost the same legal definition, but in both cases, the definition includes the product being available "for the consumer." If the license is poorly written to include anything else, then it is likely non-binding. But I think it is clear that his was not a public release for the intended audience, and I think it is entirely relevant what state the site was in when the alleged violations occurred. I'm not asking about whether or not they violated AGPL on a narrow interpretation of the license from a single clause, but whether that caveat in the license is enforceable in this situation. I'm thinking they will have a hard time showing that this constituted a release or distribution under US law. I was just wanting someone with more legal experience than me to weigh in.
        smoldesu 5y ago
        The AGPL license explicitly covers this edge case, it describes the release of software as "a publicly available network server". Whether or not you consider this a 'release' is irrelevant, the requirement for distributing source code still applies. See for yourself: "If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. "Knowingly relying" means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient's use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]