undefined

points

[-]

Indeed, you are right, my phrasing "but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself" is somewhat wrong or at least incomplete. I should have been more careful. It does force some stuff about how to convey the corresponding source; and it seems the GPLv3 tries to close some loopholes or address some situations more explicitly. You cited the parts of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 I should have.

I stand by the position that all this doesn't seem very restrictive though. I don't think the GPL could have been without a risk of making some legitimate cases litigious or something.

by simoncion10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> my phrasing ... is somewhat wrong

It's completely wrong.

> I stand by the position that all this doesn't seem very restrictive though.

Is your position that it's less restrictive than it needs to be?

If that's not your position, then I'm not at all sure why you're bringing this up. If that is your position, then I disagree with you. The entire point of the GPL is to require distributors to "share and share alike". It's not a "sue everyone into oblivion" license, it's a "don't be a fuckin asshole with this gift I gave you to use, inspect, and modify however you wish... pass it along to others under the same terms" license.

by jraph2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you got me wrong.

I think the GPL doesn't impose much on how one should be redistributing the source code.

I'm not sure I would like it to me more restrictive, and I completely agree with your reading (starting from "The entire point of the GPL...").

> If that's not your position, then I'm not at all sure why you're bringing this up.

My initial reply to you was me mostly agreeing with you: distributing via Google Drive is probably not a violation of the letter of the GPL. Making it a pain to get the source code is an obvious violation of its spirit though (your "don't be a fuckin asshole" point).

>> my phrasing ... is somewhat wrong

> It's completely wrong.

Well, what concrete restriction you see in the GPL about how to redistribute the source code, apart from "you must make it available in a reasonable way (and tell people they can get it, the GPLv3 is more explicit about this but Android doesn't have GPLv3 code AFAIK)?"

by ajross12 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

People are getting way too bent out of shape over that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit. It doesn't mean github. It doesn't mean "the medium I use most commonly".

Basically, if you think courts are going to be OK with interpreting "download from this FTP site" as acceptable but "download the same tarball from Drive" as unacceptable, you're fooling yourself.

Drive is fine, given the spirit of the license. It's merely inconvenient.

by simoncion11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> People are getting way too bent out of shape...

I hope you're not including me in "people". Remember that I said:

  There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but ...  I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL.

I was quoting the text of the GPL to point out to jraph that it absolutely does restrict how source code is distributed to ensure that licensees are obligated to distribute in a format that's actually useful to the typical recipient, rather than permitting a licensee to ship a couple-hundred pounds of printouts and still be in compliance with the license.