Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2h | Hacker News Reader

open source developers shouldn't have to police this, companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning.

GPL doesn't say you must provide source code once you get caught, it says you must publish it the moment you release a derivative work.

View on HN

I don’t think the gpl requires you to publish source code. It requires you to make it available on request.

Thus it’s not a question about getting caught, but whether someone made a request.

There’s a requirement to include the license with the product, isn’t there? I’d hope removing a license is actually a pretty serious offense.

maybe you should find out, before spreading misinformation:

> require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Terms_...

Where's the misinformation? Isn't he describing the second option you quoted?

did you read what I quoted? It says the binary must be distributed with source code, or with an offer to distribute the source code. Lego did none of that.

I was responding to the comment on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35182511, which says that "GPL doesn't say you must provide source code once you get caught, it says you must publish it the moment you release a derivative work."

And, no. You don't have to publish the source code. You have to offer to distribute it. Which is different. (I am not a lawyer).

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35183786 contains a quick discussion about what is and what is not there. I don't have the product, so I cannot tell.

> companies should just follow the licenses from the beginning

Sure, should. Some don't. So, developers and activists also need to be policing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com