3 ms·

But it is correct. I would love for all violations to be policed like this. I didn’t take time away from my family and life for someone else to profit. I did it

But it is correct. I would love for all violations to be policed like this. I didn’t take time away from my family and life for someone else to profit. I did it ONLY because I’d knew what GPL would enforce. The business opening or not does not matter here. GPL is enforced on the moment you publish underneath that license.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
What exactly are you hoping for or missing? No actual harm has been done to anybody. If "Truth Social" was online for real it would be different, but now? The beta users presumably didn't mind that they didn't have the source code. I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.
- martimarkov 5y ago
  GPL does not differentiate between beta and not. You use GPL code - you release anything build on top of it. Simple as that. Anyone can request a copy of their source and should get it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in beta or not as long as it’s licensed under GPL. Even if it’s internal software. Don’t like it - go build from scratch and use some other software but don’t break the license agreement just because you are lazy and can’t be bothered to write your own code.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    I don't think that's correct. Unless you publish it, you don't have to release anything. Otherwise it would be madness. Also my question was more about why that specific concern about the license - why did you pick AGPL instead of GPL and why do you care so much about that specific case?
_-david-_ 5y ago
It may not actually be correct if nobody who has access to the beta website has actually requested the code.
- martimarkov 5y ago
  They had the mastodon logo shown at some point appear in one of the pages.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    OK? As far as I know, AGPL only requires code to be provided upon request. If people in the beta test have not requested the code there may not be a violation.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

What exactly are you hoping for or missing? No actual harm has been done to anybody. If "Truth Social" was online for real it would be different, but now? The beta users presumably didn't mind that they didn't have the source code. I think the Mastodon people are merely hoping they can stop Trump, they are not really concerned about getting the source code.

martimarkov 5y ago
GPL does not differentiate between beta and not. You use GPL code - you release anything build on top of it. Simple as that. Anyone can request a copy of their source and should get it. Doesn’t matter if it’s in beta or not as long as it’s licensed under GPL. Even if it’s internal software. Don’t like it - go build from scratch and use some other software but don’t break the license agreement just because you are lazy and can’t be bothered to write your own code.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I don't think that's correct. Unless you publish it, you don't have to release anything. Otherwise it would be madness. Also my question was more about why that specific concern about the license - why did you pick AGPL instead of GPL and why do you care so much about that specific case?

_-david-_ 5y ago

It may not actually be correct if nobody who has access to the beta website has actually requested the code.

martimarkov 5y ago
They had the mastodon logo shown at some point appear in one of the pages.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  OK? As far as I know, AGPL only requires code to be provided upon request. If people in the beta test have not requested the code there may not be a violation.