> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2
replyNot 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.
replyAlso, 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
replyThat would be trivial to DDoS
replyThe 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.
replyGoogle Drive is customarily used for software interchange?
replyMy 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.
replyUnfortunately, 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.
replyFloppy disks.
reply1) 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
replyMostly 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.
replyNo, 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.
replyBut 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.
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).
replyAs 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.
replyA source code listing in a book/binder is a customary way of distributing software, albeit historic.
reply