The thing I don't get is that this new platform hasn't been officially released to users. Are they really required to make the source code available if it's an internal service, before the official launch?
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
Sounds to me like the 'all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network' part doesn't distinguish between an internal service and an external service. If it has users, you must comply with the license.
I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.
> Finally, it's worth noting that we could find no evidence that someone illegally broke into the website. All the evidence available on the Internet (as of 17:00 US/Eastern on Friday 2021-10-22) indicates that the site was simply deployed live early as a test, and without proper configuration (such as pre-reserving some account names). Once discovered, people merely used the site legitimately to register accounts and use its features.
I don't think the idea of a "launch" is present in either the license or copyright law; making the service available for use (which they did, inadvertently, it seems) seems to trigger the requirement.
That doesn’t matter. The regular GPL demands that (at the least) a written offer of source code on request is provided along the binaries. If (at the least) no such offer is provided, the GPL has been violated.
The AGPL, additionally, requires that web-accessible software have a “download source code” link on the web site. If the original software had such a link, but no such link is present on the web site in question, the AGPL has been violated.
In no case is it necessary for the end user to ask for the source code and be denied. Doing this is a pure nicety on the part of the user, offering violators a way out of being sued by that individual user, which does not have to be offered.
> However, when you put any site on the Internet licensed under AGPLv3, the AGPLv3 requires that you provide (to every user) an opportunity to receive the entire Corresponding Source for the website based on that code. These early users did not receive that source code, and Trump's Group is currently ignoring their very public requests for it.
Launch and release has no legal meaning, gmail was in beta for years. What matters is who can access it?
Does a non-user of a services have the right to request for the source under the current AGPL 3 legal framework?
"It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server."
So in this scenario you cant ask for source code whether you are a user or not?
You can make users agree via a EULA not to ask for the source code, but that does not change your obligation under your license from the copyright owner. If your user breaks the EULA and asks for the code you must provide it or you are in breach of your license and the copyright owner could come after you.
You could then also cancel that user's service, or do whatever else you normally do when a user breaks your EULA.
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.
I held my nose and voted "against" Trump both times. I don't like the guy. But I really don't like IP trolls. Software patents. SCO. The RIAA. "You wouldn't download a car." The aggression with which people are picking up the pitchforks over this is shocking.
It was a test. It was a mistake. People weren't supposed to see it or use it, and it's not up anymore. What damage was even done?
It leaves a foul smell around AGPL-licensed projects and Mastodon. I'm deeply discouraged from ever hosting a Mastodon instance if any changes I make to the source are going to summon a lynch mob if I haven't made them public within hours, especially if it's only a test deployment.
Even if you think Trump and his fan base are total monsters, don't go forgetting what Nietzsche said about fighting monsters.
I have a right to control the works that I have made. I don’t care who you are, if you blatantly steal my work and claim it as your own you better lawyer up cause I’m coming after you! Just as any software developer would, open-source or not.
Which is exactly what SCO were saying. How soon do we forget how much we hate it when the corporate interests take their turn at bat over licensing? If your license permits you to be "that guy", it's clearly not libre. Maybe no one ever claimed AGPL was libre but this is definitely a huge reminder that it's not.
Mind, I'm not arguing that they didn't violate the license. My issue is the ruthless animosity with which people suddenly seem to love aggressive software license enforcement. Maybe I'm too old and crusty, but I would hate to be in a position like this, and would hate to put others in the same position. Especially when all signs point to this being an accidental go-live.
If they're going to use mastodon they might as well start releasing the source code now because they'll have to do it when they launch anyway.
They're a billion dollar company ran by a billionaire, they should be held to a higher standard then your average joe, since they have way more resources to do things correctly.
Note, that the server operator is free to provide the code in ways different from publishing it on GitHub.
It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server.
Also, AGPL does not define a method for providing source code, be it publishing on a web server, sending by email, delivering on a floppy disk via messenger dogs or printing it on a papyrus and sending it with pigeon mail.
And lastly, you claim the service was 'officially released'. According to Trump's official statement, the official launch of a service will be in January.