This isn't "original GNU software." It's an AGPL licensed project, and here is the verbatim language of the license[1]:
> The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version.
> 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.
> If your software can interact with users remotely through a computer network, you should also make sure that it provides a way for users to get its source. For example, if your program is a web application, its interface could display a "Source" link that leads users to an archive of the code. There are many ways you could offer source, and different solutions will be better for different programs; see section 13 for the specific requirements.
Apple, to the best of my knowledge, avoids both AGPL and GPLv3 like the plague. They've stuck to GPLv2 for any GNU software they happen to distribute, and they're making a concerted effort to remove even that.
True, but irrelevant. Different license.
> Lots of companies do this kind of thing with (A)GPL
Examples of companies misusing the AGPL? Misuse of the GPL is somewhat common, though they generally release the source code when prodded, _mostly_ complying with the letter of the license if not the spirit (strictly speaking, they often fail to make the offer, which is a breach). AGPL's requirements are rather stricter, though.
> IIRC, Apple didn't release it's OS X source code until well after OS X was first available.
True, but irrelevant. Different licenses; they didn't have to release Darwin at all.
What is the appropriate level of response?
If the company responds in the negative (i.e., denying they're using mastodon or outright refusing to provide the source) or if the company fails to respond in a certain amount of time (like a week at least, since this is a new company), then you can start legal action.
It seems to me that because this organization could not find a link or a github making the source code public (which AGPL does not require), they decided to sue. They made no attempt to contact the company and ask, and they're not making any allegation the organization has outright refused. Instead, they've presumed such based on lack of a public download.
That is completely false. If you read the article or the license before commenting you will understand why.
Is Tesla a right-wing media site too? Vizio? Or did you just construct a narrative without knowing history?
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/oct/30/calling-all-tesla...
It's... really mind blowing that they're not even pretending to be objective about this stuff any more. Even if you think it's justified, you ought to be able to see that normalizing this sort of behavior can and will backfire.
If they've written to the company and the company insists they are not using mastodon or don't need to provide the source.. that's one thing. But that doesn't seem to have happened.
Instead, since it's not a downloadable link already (which again, there is no requirement it be), they're getting all mad.
This is false. The AGPL explicitly requires that the source be accessible through a network server.
START QUOTE
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms. You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
d) 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.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
END QUOTE
So it seems to me that one can be compliant without it available on a network server. HOnestly, I'm not a lawyer. I just know the old GNU software could be requested using mail, before github.
> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License [...]
Emphasis mine.
Put another way: this section has no impact on TRUTH's legal obligations, which consist primarily of the sections I've quoted above[1]. They're merely additional things that TRUTH could do to be a good member of the OSS community.
Thus, I stand by my original belief that the source code has to be made available to users, and that snail mail / individual requests of the source code are a viable means to comply with the license. And I stand by my original belief that this copyleft group is politically motivated, as it publicized the claim that truth social is not complying before it gave it any time to comply.
> 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.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about the SFC's motivations. But the language of the AGPL is clear.
They did so by contacting the company and saying "Hey, you have 30 days to make your source code available."
I'm not sure what you want here.
By violating the terms of the license. They have 30 days to remedy the violation, or their rights in the software are permanently terminated
> and as far as I could tell, no one can actually access the service
It was publicly accessible: "Truth Social hasn’t officially launched. But users could access a test version of the platform"