Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpm | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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.

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com