Hacker News Reader

Comment by truthsocial | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for your request (routed through legal, which added a day or so of latency).

Main issue is we don't have an automated pipeline to update the published tarball/zipfile from our internal source control system, so it has to be done manually, and no one has that as a specific task. We also review the source for IP/security concerns before releasing.

We will probably add a quarterly task to update it, until/unless we start maintaining a public branch and do it automatically.

View on HN

> 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.

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

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.

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."

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.

The latter.

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.

Which we maintain at: https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/open-source/ -- the issue is that had gotten out of date.

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!

Not the law, these are just license terms.

Contract law covers licenses. Just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s not important to follow. Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

> do you think it’s okay to yadda yadda yadda

No, I never said that. You made it up yourself and pretended that I said it.

There is a difference between honoring an agreement between equals (such as a license) and obeying the law.

I never said you said it, I asked it. As stated previously, license are contract law.

You imagined some meaning not present in the words I wrote, and asked me if that’s what I meant. This is a way of implying that my words had this imagined meaning. You should avoid doing that.

Contract law does not explicitly state that every provision of every contract must always be followed. By definition, contract law really has nothing to do with the specific circumstances of any particular agreement; if it did, it would just be a law about those circumstances and not about contracts. In fact, it was not until two years ago that a court acknowledged that the GPL really is a contract (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/).

All I am saying is that you shouldn’t ask them not to try to weasel out of their obligations under “the law”, but instead to ask that they not try to weasel out of their obligations under the terms of the AGPL. This is a contract that they entered in to not just with the authors of the open–source software that they rely on, but also with their users. It would be dishonorable to renege.

> Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

Not defending Truth Social, but let's ask GitHub that same question after Microsoft trained on GPL and AGPL source code for its GitHub Copilot uses and it is known for outputting GPL and AGPL code. [0]

As Truth Social should comply with the AGPL, GitHub should do the same and open source the whole of Copilot.

[0] https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-...

While the open source community does actively try to avoid lawsuits, others have let their source code releases get out of date with their actual website before. Usually this results in intervention from a group such as the SFC, backed with very gentle and politely–worded reminders that lawsuits are possible and are occasionally necessary. I believe that they will also remind you that revocation of the license is a possible remedy, although one that they earnestly hope to avoid. Their goal will be to help you find a way to get yourself back into compliance with the license, making the lawsuit unnecessary. They’re pretty good at this; approximately 90% of organizations that find themselves out of compliance manage, with the SFC’s help, to get themselves back on track without involving the courts. You can read more about it at https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ if you want.

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".

I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).

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.

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.

I stand corrected. Thank you for linking the relevant paragraph in your sibling comment.

What's the work culture like at Truth Social? Are you guys mostly remote? How many developers are there? Are you hiring a lot of new people? Is there an ideological current to the workplace culture?

I won't be applying, but I'm genuinely curious what it's like to work at a company in such a unique situation.

Pretty good! Relatively small team (between 10 and 100), biased toward senior with a few ~5 year more intermediate people, mostly remote across the US although we do have an office and try to get together monthly to quarterly. Ironically, lots of open source contributors. We are hiring for a few roles but mostly just being opportunistic rather than needing to hire. Remarkably little turnover for a tech company. We've all worked at multiple other places made the conscious decision to make this a good place to work.

Biggest challenges are supporting multiple platforms (iOS, Android, Web), all the backend infra, etc at scale with a small team -- i.e. normal startup stuff. Also the perennial challenge of doing new features vs. making things more robust.

A lot of info in the SEC filings as well as news articles (many of which are predictably biased for partisan reasons).

It’s not political bias when your co-workers get caught and enter a guilty plea: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/03/business/trump-truth-soci...

Those were venture capitalists who invested in the acquiring SPAC, not workers at Truth Social.

Masks don’t protect against viral licenses either. IP isn’t a valid claim to withhold the source. Security needs to be managed outside the code via vaults and other runtime secret stores. There’s no leg to stand on for not releasing the entire code consistently.

The other mastodon instances voluntarily chose to refuse to peer with Truth Social. Maybe they should show their face in court too.

On what basis?

Can you expand on what legal obligation to peer you believe they have?

I don’t understand what that has to do with source code level licensing. I’ve never seen anything in any open source license that requires forced interoperability at a service and business level. The fact they’re social pariahs doesn’t have a legal remedy, rather it just requires being not such asshats and hurtful to others.

> We also review the source for IP/security concerns before releasing.

Any modifications you make need to also be open sourced.

Best practice when releasing source code generally is making sure no one left API keys, etc. in source code. (Obviously you never check secrets in in the first place, keeping them separate, but it's still worth automated and manual review before releasing.)

That's not IP, that's secrets. IP needs to be included.

Logos, art, and similar? I would have guessed that would not need to be included.

Those would be provided by a CDN, with some storage service underneath that. Configuration secrets that (transitively) point to these services should be injected by the build system and have no business being in source code.

Trade secrets are a type of IP.

They mean 'configuration secrets'. Those variables used for internal authorization and configuration that should never be leaked outside the organization. If source code of AGPL software is modified and used for an online service, it needs to be published in respecting the license, and best any 'trade secrets' are isolated. The only other alternatives are to use the code as-is or build a proprietary solution from scratch.

I know what they meant.

My point is that the uses of the term at as disparate as they're making it. You would be sued under trade secret law if you intentionally leaked them.

> I know what they meant.

If you did, "Trade secrets are a type of IP." seems to be an unrelated assertion to the thread.

> You would be sued under trade secret law if you intentionally leaked them.

To embed trade secrets into an open source fork, would suggest either the intent to withhold the modified source, ignorance, or flat out incompetence. Anyone, be it a lone hacker or a large organization, can simply fork the source on the platform it's hosted on (e.g., GitHub, GitLab) at a click of a button.

It is a requirement of AGPL that all deployed updates to a product or online service need published source[0]. Once again, very simple to have this running off CI/CD. If there are trade secrets in that source... oh well, they have to be published too. So the simple solution is to not have them in there in the first place (i.e., abstract it away).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40032179

Best practice is to not have secrets in your source code. Those should be supplied by an internal service, or injected by your build pipeline at the least.

Maybe you should rectify this legal requirement rather than continue to flout it? Put your code where your mouth is and start producing your source continually, as is the requirement from the original developers. You wonder why people seem to hate MAGA folks: it’s because of stuff like this where you have a CLEAR duty under the license (or law in many other cases) and choose to ignore it, disrespecting everyone who creates mastodon upstream.

you mean continue to flout it. And people hate MAGA because of open source licensing? I don't think so.

Thanks, not an English major. People hate them because they ignore the law and community standards, such as in this case, like I said. This is one example of many, but you know that and are arguing in bad faith rather than reading my words as intended. Don’t bother responding, or do and get the last words, I don’t really care to argue with trolls today.

You could just, like, turn it all off and go on holiday.

We believe in free speech and giving a voice to the deplatformed, so while we could, we won't.

You mean solely for the deplatformed, and not necessarily free speech for anyone else?

Edit: I was banned for saying Ashley Babbit was committing a crime and that we should not have double standards where she is a martyr but George Floyd can’t be.

I don't think our policy would have flagged that post on its own, let alone banned an account over it; if that happened it was an error.

Why did you ban me then? Just like Free Speech Extremist all over again, can't actually live up to the claims you make.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are deplatformed too. Will you carry their speech?

We try to adhere to https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/

So not free speech?

Says you'll ban porn. Porn is free speech.

Says you'll ban spam. Unwanted commercial solicitation is free speech.

Says you'll ban incitement to violence and harassment. That is also free speech.

All that "free speech" means is that the government can't take a priori action to prevent it from happening. But there can be consequences.

All the popular platforms are free in that sense already. You will just have a boundary somewhere else for what you consider worthy of consequences.

Which is fine. I don't actually believe anyone enjoys a completely unpoliced platform. But maybe don't be so quick in saying you'll give a voice to the deplatformed, when you're a platform yourself and will ban people too for not adhering to your own speech police.

> consequences

The Idi Amin school of civil rights: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

If you want to know what freedom of speech actually means in the USA, you should read up on the topic, for example starting here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-sy...

Even if you hate FIRE for defending the civil rights of people you hate, the article is succinct and contains links to the ca ten most relevant high level court cases.

Given who your owners are, I sincerely doubt that.

Like FTX, their site is not about the “product” its about creating bagholders

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/two-individuals-plead-g...

Never had Truth Social on HN on my bingo card at all.

Still not good enough.

You still need to address this though, you are exploiting open source software by ignoring the license.

> Main issue is we don't have an automated pipeline to update the published

Main issue is probably that your team is too busy trying to one-up FTX

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/trump-spa...

there are five comments ITT that confuse developers of a platform with investors in a SPAC. weird mistake to make repeatedly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com