Hacker News Reader

Arguably, they aren't even distributing the source code at all anymore. The GPL defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".

I would be willing to bet any amount of money that no Google developer makes modifications using a tarball that's missing commit history. The preferred form for making modifications is a source control repository.

View on HN

While it would be nice if it worked that way, I think there are too many historical examples of tarball distribution of GPL code to make that argument.

I begrudgingly agree. I would like to make a case that times have moved on/the definition of preferred has changed; but I don't think that would hold up on its own as a legal argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com