7 ms·

> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?

by bitpush 28d ago

devy 28d ago
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. Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.
- mikestorrent 28d ago
  Can't wait for pallets of paper to get shipped out to comply maliciously
  - mjg59 28d ago
    The 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.
    - exe34 28d ago
      Floppy disks.
      - mjg59 28d ago
        1) 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
        eru 28d ago
        Mostly 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.
    - buzer 28d ago
      Google Drive is customarily used for software interchange?
      - mjg59 28d ago
        My 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.
      - anonzzzies 28d ago
        Unfortunately, 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.
  - uniq7 27d ago
    That would be trivial to DDoS
- rpdillon 27d ago
  No, both sections a and b of part 3 of GPLv2 specify it should be machine readable. Would be interesting to see the court case where they argued the printed sheets machine need a bulb because of OCR!
GuB-42 28d ago
No, 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. But 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.
- ValdikSS 27d ago
  >But 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 Or vice-versa: you're free to sell publicly available free stuff. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- TheCoelacanth 27d ago
  The GPL requires use of a medium customarily used for software interchange; not a medium that used to be customarily used for software interchange. It's not customary to mail software on disks anymore so it doesn't fulfill the GPL anymore.
  - pjmlp 26d ago
    I guess a lawyer can easily challenge that point of view, when the license doesn't explicitly specify how.
WhyNotHugo 28d ago
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).
globular-toast 27d ago
As 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.
- anticensor 27d ago
  A source code listing in a book/binder is a customary way of distributing software, albeit historic.
  - ninalanyon 27d ago
    Was customary, it no longer is customary.
    - gsquaredxc 27d ago
      They still make printed textbooks. Google’s lawyers I’m sure are well funded enough to make this case.
      - account42 26d ago
        They can make whatever case they want, doesn't mean that a court will accept it.
- dminik 27d ago
  I have trouble imagining that Google could seriously argue that printing tens of millions of lines of code would be customary. I doubt Google is distributing the Android code to third party OEMs that way.
  - bitpush 27d ago
    Hypothetically if they were to go the court the proof would be ok Graphene to say what they did violated the law. Judge would be like 'Mr Counsel, where does it say that what Google did violated the law'
pjmlp 26d ago
None at all, when GPL was designed, shipping floppies and tapes was still quite common.

> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?

by bitpush 28d ago

> Google refusing to do so means Google wants to violate the GPLv2 Not an expert in GPL, but does it say that the source code needs to be provided by a url?

devy 28d ago

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. Also, the OP did mentioned that Google also squashed the git commit to a single commit for whatever reason.

mikestorrent 28d ago
Can't wait for pallets of paper to get shipped out to comply maliciously
- mjg59 28d ago
  The 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.
  - exe34 28d ago
    Floppy disks.
    - mjg59 28d ago
      1) 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
      - eru 28d ago
        Mostly 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.
  - buzer 28d ago
    Google Drive is customarily used for software interchange?
    - mjg59 28d ago
      My 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.
    - anonzzzies 28d ago
      Unfortunately, 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.
- uniq7 27d ago
  That would be trivial to DDoS
rpdillon 27d ago
No, both sections a and b of part 3 of GPLv2 specify it should be machine readable. Would be interesting to see the court case where they argued the printed sheets machine need a bulb because of OCR!

GuB-42 28d ago

No, 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. But 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.

ValdikSS 27d ago
>But 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 Or vice-versa: you're free to sell publicly available free stuff. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
TheCoelacanth 27d ago
The GPL requires use of a medium customarily used for software interchange; not a medium that used to be customarily used for software interchange. It's not customary to mail software on disks anymore so it doesn't fulfill the GPL anymore.
- pjmlp 26d ago
  I guess a lawyer can easily challenge that point of view, when the license doesn't explicitly specify how.

WhyNotHugo 28d ago

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).

globular-toast 27d ago

As 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.

anticensor 27d ago
A source code listing in a book/binder is a customary way of distributing software, albeit historic.
- ninalanyon 27d ago
  Was customary, it no longer is customary.
  - gsquaredxc 27d ago
    They still make printed textbooks. Google’s lawyers I’m sure are well funded enough to make this case.
    - account42 26d ago
      They can make whatever case they want, doesn't mean that a court will accept it.
dminik 27d ago
I have trouble imagining that Google could seriously argue that printing tens of millions of lines of code would be customary. I doubt Google is distributing the Android code to third party OEMs that way.
- bitpush 27d ago
  Hypothetically if they were to go the court the proof would be ok Graphene to say what they did violated the law. Judge would be like 'Mr Counsel, where does it say that what Google did violated the law'

pjmlp 26d ago

None at all, when GPL was designed, shipping floppies and tapes was still quite common.