• fonix232@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Small sidenote: distribution of modified source code of GPLv2/v3 covered projects is only mandatory to those who have access to a binary version of the modified sources.

    e.g. if you take a GPLv2 covered project that is a simple HTTP server, and you give the binary nobody, then you’re not required to share the source (if the HTTP server is AGPL covered then you need to provide it to anyone who can access the HTTP service and requests the source).

    This is an important distinction, as you can’t demand the source of a GPL project from someone who cloned it and made modifications to their own use without distributing a binary of those changes. If I fork Orca and make some changes, and showcase those as screenshots, you have absolutely no right to demand the source for it. If I were to send you a binary of Orca with my changes, then you’d have the right.

    I mean this distinction is obviously not applicable here but I wanted to make sure the GPL summary is fully correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

    • Senal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.

      • fonix232@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        14 hours ago

        A fully correct statement is categorically a technically correct statement, therefore the two are not contradictory.

        • 4am@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          You statement is, also, technically correct. And therefore a fully correct statement is the best kind of correct, via the transitive property.