Re:Truth Social broke software rules, says copyleft group
by rsynnott on Friday October 22, 2021 @03:35PM
(#28961628)
> IIRC, for the original GNU software, the source code was provided by writing to GNU via snail mail.
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.
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.