It's... really mind blowing that they're not even pretending to be objective about this stuff any more. Even if you think it's justified, you ought to be able to see that normalizing this sort of behavior can and will backfire.
If they've written to the company and the company insists they are not using mastodon or don't need to provide the source.. that's one thing. But that doesn't seem to have happened.
Instead, since it's not a downloadable link already (which again, there is no requirement it be), they're getting all mad.
This is false. The AGPL explicitly requires that the source be accessible through a network server.
START QUOTE
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
d) 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.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
END QUOTE
So it seems to me that one can be compliant without it available on a network server. HOnestly, I'm not a lawyer. I just know the old GNU software could be requested using mail, before github.
> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License [...]
Emphasis mine.
Put another way: this section has no impact on TRUTH's legal obligations, which consist primarily of the sections I've quoted above[1]. They're merely additional things that TRUTH could do to be a good member of the OSS community.
Thus, I stand by my original belief that the source code has to be made available to users, and that snail mail / individual requests of the source code are a viable means to comply with the license. And I stand by my original belief that this copyleft group is politically motivated, as it publicized the claim that truth social is not complying before it gave it any time to comply.
> 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.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about the SFC's motivations. But the language of the AGPL is clear.
They did so by contacting the company and saying "Hey, you have 30 days to make your source code available."
I'm not sure what you want here.
By violating the terms of the license. They have 30 days to remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated
> and as far as I could tell, no one can actually access the service
It was publicly accessible: "Truth Social hasn’t officially launched. But users could access a test version of the platform"