Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitpush | Hacker News Reader

> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2

Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?

GPL doesn't require them to publish the source in git. FWIW, Google can be compliant and publish the source in Physical Medium too if they opt too.

Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.

Can't wait for pallets of paper to get shipped out to comply maliciously

The license requires that it be distributed on a medium customarily used for software interchange, and I don't think you'd stand a good chance of arguing that paper satisfies that.

Google Drive is customarily used for software interchange?

My personal website isn't customarily used for software interchange, but http is. I think getting into discussions about which websites are acceptable and which aren't feels like a bad place.

Unfortunately, I know more than a few companies who do that. The same kind of developer who used SourceSafe to just checkout the entire project (thus locking it) while busy with it. And then pop a intranetcrm_200826_0713.zip on SharePoint. Enough of them around still unfortunately.

Floppy disks.

1) floppy disks are not customarily used for software interchange - where they are still used (aircraft software updates, bits of San Francisco's streetcar infrastructure) it's weird enough to be remarked upon. 2) the cost to Google of finding enough working floppies and paying someone to dump that much code onto them, then mailing them out, then having the other end just say "disk 323 was corrupted by USPS X rays, please send again" 20 times, would massively outweigh the benefits of making this awkward

Mostly agreed. However you can solve the problem of having x% of disks corrupted via error correcting codes. It's what Google already does for their own internal storage: when you own millions of hard disks, some of them will inevitably fail.

That would be trivial to DDoS

No, both sections a and b of part 3 of GPLv2 specify it should be machine readable.

Would be interesting to see the court case where they argued the printed sheets machine need a bulb because of OCR!

No, and it doesn't even have to be provided for free as long as the price is reasonable with regard to the delivery costs. The GPL was made when mailing disks was a common way of delivering software and it is still a valid way to do it.

But the most important part is that once you have that source code, no one can stop you from redistributing it in a cheaper and more convenient way. It means that in theory, only a single person has to request the files, that person can then publish them in a public repository.

>But the most important part is that once you have that source code, no one can stop you from redistributing it in a cheaper and more convenient way

Or vice-versa: you're free to sell publicly available free stuff.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

The GPL requires use of a medium customarily used for software interchange; not a medium that used to be customarily used for software interchange.

It's not customary to mail software on disks anymore so it doesn't fulfill the GPL anymore.

I guess a lawyer can easily challenge that point of view, when the license doesn't explicitly specify how.

No. In fact, the GPL states that the actual cost of delivery can be charged (consider this is from times when people still post-mailed floppy disks).

As far as I understand, they could send it to you printed and bound and charge you for the paper and postage if they want to.

I have trouble imagining that Google could seriously argue that printing tens of millions of lines of code would be customary.

I doubt Google is distributing the Android code to third party OEMs that way.

Hypothetically if they were to go the court the proof would be ok Graphene to say what they did violated the law.

Judge would be like 'Mr Counsel, where does it say that what Google did violated the law'

A source code listing in a book/binder is a customary way of distributing software, albeit historic.

Was customary, it no longer is customary.

They still make printed textbooks. Google’s lawyers I’m sure are well funded enough to make this case.

They can make whatever case they want, doesn't mean that a court will accept it.

None at all, when GPL was designed, shipping floppies and tapes was still quite common.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com