Can't seem to find a link to the repo on their site.
What ? Why entitled ? I have some WIP and production ready code in some git repo on my company's network and it's MIT licensed but there is absolutely zero obligation to upload it on the internet.
Of course I don't go around making website about it so there's that.
Pretty sure those guys will upload the source code when they feel like it's the time to do it.
Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license".
Not to mention that you don't know why they went with the GPL. Maybe they used some GPL code and thus have no choice in the license terms. So it would be a matter of the original copyright holders suing them for breach of license.
If the license promised delivery of source code then of course the author could be sued. But as far as I can tell, GPL (at least v3) makes no such promises. If you disagree, please point in the license text the part that you think applies.
My comment was responding to someone saying that even if someone gave you code they authored under GPLv3, that you couldn't expect them to honour the terms of the license.
As an aside, I just noticed that the license text on their website is not a verbatim copy of the GPLv3 license text (which is not permitted). In particular, it's missing the copyright, version, date, and the epilogue that describes how to use the license for your own works.
"You" in this context meaning the licensee, not the licensor. I don't see anything in Section 6 (or elsewhere) that creates any obligations for the licensor. My naive reading of the license indicates that the licensee can redistribute ("convey") the software only if they also convey the source code. But if they are unable to do so (because the source was not conveyed to them) then they simply may not redistribute the software at all.
The GPL is a set of conditions that others have to obey if they want to use your code. How can you going to sue someone for violating the copyright on code that's not yours? If you see someone selling copied Tom Clancy novels on the street, you can't sue them. Only Tom Clancy and anyone else to whom he grants the copyright.
> because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license
So Microsoft is bound by the license on MS Word?
Or distribute it. If someone distributes something to you under a license that explicitly states that it gives you certain permissions, they can't arbitrarily decide to retract that license. That's sort of like saying "if I write a song, and give you a license that allows you to get the sheet music from me, I can refuse to give you sheet music if you ask". If you didn't want to give me sheet music, why did you explicitly give me the right to do it? On some level it sounds like a breach of contract, though of course licenses aren't contracts.
Also you've forgotten that maybe Publii is based on some GPL source code, so they might not be the sole author and thus are infringing on someone else's copyright by not obeying the GPL.
> So Microsoft is bound by the license on MS Word?
Yes, of course they are! That's the whole point! If you read Section B of the Microsoft Word 2013 License[1], it states quite explicitly that:
* In §B4, all disagreements outside of small claims or negotiations will be handled in a binding arbitration. This applies to both parties.
* In §B5, neither party can engage in a class-action suit (they must all be done on an individual basis).
* In §B7, it states that claims have to be filed within one year. That also will apply to both parties.
They also give you a limited warranty for non-trial software in the last section, which obviously they are also bound by. Obviously terms in the license that don't limit Microsoft don't affect them. But with the GPL, it explicitly states that distributors must provide the corresponding source code.
I think I know what you're trying to say, "are you saying that Microsoft employees are bound to the single-seat terms of the license". But that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft.
My comment was three sentences and I said exactly that in the third sentence.
> that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft
Okay. That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL, and does not need to distribute the source.
You didn't say exactly that, you said:
> How can you going to sue someone for violating the copyright on code that's not yours? If you see someone selling copied Tom Clancy novels on the street, you can't sue them. Only Tom Clancy and anyone else to whom he grants the copyright.
While I understand your point, the fact that you cannot personally sue them does not change the fact that they're infringing on someone's copyright (so _someone_ could sue them). The point of this discussion is not whether you or I could sue them, but rather are they breaching the GPL by not releasing source.
> That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL,
Odd, because that's not what I said. At all. What I said was that a Microsoft employee is bound by a different license than a random consumer. This was immediately after I explicitly outlined several cases where Microsoft's EULA clearly places restrictions on Microsoft.
Microsoft distributes software under a EULA, and they have to act in accordance with what that EULA says (just like you do as the recipient of said software). The EULA is not symmetric in its restrictions (unlike the GPL) so I recognise the cause of confusion, but just because Microsoft isn't bound by the no-redistribution policy of the EULA (because that's explicitly only required of people who are receiving the software) doesn't mean the EULA doesn't apply to them...
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Emphasis on to the program's users. So if you downloaded it and installed it, found out there is no source folder, as a user, you are therefore "entitled" to get the source code. Just like me, write to them and ask politely for a copy of the source code.
But I agree, it doesn't feel very "open source"