4 ms·

> We will probably add a quarterly task to update it, until/unless we start maintaining a public branch and do it automatically. Unless you only update the cod

by gpm 3y ago

> We will probably add a quarterly task to update it, until/unless we start maintaining a public branch and do it automatically. Unless you only update the code running on the website quarterly, I don't think this complies with the license.

dbmikus 3y ago
Just curious, does AGPL require actively publishing the source code, or making it available upon request within a reasonable timeframe?
- gpm 3y ago
  My understanding is it requires active publishing, but I'm not a lawyer. Here's what I believe to be the relevant section > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > 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. I'm particularly looking at "from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software", I don't believe "upon emailed request" qualifies.
  - sgtnoodle 3y ago
    Is email not customary? It seems like it would be fine as long as they respond in a timely manner, and provide access instructions. Also, in this situation it seems like that's exactly what happened. I suppose what might be non-compliant is if their website doesn't explicitly document the process to access the source, i.e. "send an email to this addressm to request the most up-to-date source code."
    - gpm 3y ago
      Email is customary for some things of course, however I don't believe it is a "customary means of facilitating copying of software". Nor do I believe it is "providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server". It needs to be both to satisfy the license.
- margalabargala 3y ago
  The latter.
- db48x 3y ago
  It depends on how the program is itself distributed. For programs that users interact with over the network, the program must have a way to offer those users the source code as well, though it need not be located on the same server. Paragraph 6d: Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. This just means that it should have some user–visible page that describes the software and any open–source components it uses, and that this same page should offer a way to download their source code. If you use an open–source component but haven’t modified it, you can send your users to its own webpage to download it if you prefer, but if you have modified it then you have to allow them to download the modified code.
  - truthsocial 3y ago
    Which we maintain at: https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/ https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/ -- the issue is that had gotten out of date.
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      So, you don’t maintain it. Irregular updates aren’t maintenance. Maintenance is regular and scheduled. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the law!
      - db48x 3y ago
        Not the law, these are just license terms.
margalabargala 3y ago
Strictly speaking, the source code needs to be made to users upon request. It doesn't need to be proactively published. That's just the easiest way to do it. So it would be within the license to update "quarterly, and whenever someone bothers to ask".
- gpm 3y ago
  I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).
  - margalabargala 3y ago
    I stand corrected. Thank you for linking the relevant paragraph in your sibling comment.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    That is how GPL has always worked. Before AGPL expanded the scope to network services, only people with possession of a binary containing GPL code had a right to request the source. You never have to publicly disclose the source beforehand and you can deliver it by any means you choose with a media fee if necessary. Tapes and paper listings are compliant. AGPL doesn't change the requirements for source delivery.
    - gpm 3y ago
      The GPL and AGPL are two different licenses, and the clauses that require publishing source are very different. The GPL explicitly allows for the request based model, the AGPL (again, exact clause cited below in a sibling comment thread) does not. The AGPL also explicitly requires it be at no charge and be provided over the network. Edit: Actually I'll just quote the relevant clause of the AGPL here again > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > 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.

by gpm 3y ago

dbmikus 3y ago

Just curious, does AGPL require actively publishing the source code, or making it available upon request within a reasonable timeframe?

gpm 3y ago
My understanding is it requires active publishing, but I'm not a lawyer. Here's what I believe to be the relevant section > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > 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. I'm particularly looking at "from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software", I don't believe "upon emailed request" qualifies.
- sgtnoodle 3y ago
  Is email not customary? It seems like it would be fine as long as they respond in a timely manner, and provide access instructions. Also, in this situation it seems like that's exactly what happened. I suppose what might be non-compliant is if their website doesn't explicitly document the process to access the source, i.e. "send an email to this addressm to request the most up-to-date source code."
  - gpm 3y ago
    Email is customary for some things of course, however I don't believe it is a "customary means of facilitating copying of software". Nor do I believe it is "providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server". It needs to be both to satisfy the license.
margalabargala 3y ago
The latter.
db48x 3y ago
It depends on how the program is itself distributed. For programs that users interact with over the network, the program must have a way to offer those users the source code as well, though it need not be located on the same server. Paragraph 6d: Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. This just means that it should have some user–visible page that describes the software and any open–source components it uses, and that this same page should offer a way to download their source code. If you use an open–source component but haven’t modified it, you can send your users to its own webpage to download it if you prefer, but if you have modified it then you have to allow them to download the modified code.
- truthsocial 3y ago
  Which we maintain at: https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/ https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/ -- the issue is that had gotten out of date.
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    So, you don’t maintain it. Irregular updates aren’t maintenance. Maintenance is regular and scheduled. Stop trying to weasel your way out of the law!
    - db48x 3y ago
      Not the law, these are just license terms.

margalabargala 3y ago

Strictly speaking, the source code needs to be made to users upon request. It doesn't need to be proactively published. That's just the easiest way to do it. So it would be within the license to update "quarterly, and whenever someone bothers to ask".

gpm 3y ago
I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).
- margalabargala 3y ago
  I stand corrected. Thank you for linking the relevant paragraph in your sibling comment.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  That is how GPL has always worked. Before AGPL expanded the scope to network services, only people with possession of a binary containing GPL code had a right to request the source. You never have to publicly disclose the source beforehand and you can deliver it by any means you choose with a media fee if necessary. Tapes and paper listings are compliant. AGPL doesn't change the requirements for source delivery.
  - gpm 3y ago
    The GPL and AGPL are two different licenses, and the clauses that require publishing source are very different. The GPL explicitly allows for the request based model, the AGPL (again, exact clause cited below in a sibling comment thread) does not. The AGPL also explicitly requires it be at no charge and be provided over the network. Edit: Actually I'll just quote the relevant clause of the AGPL here again > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > 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.