logoalt Hacker News

bitpushyesterday at 10:46 PM4 repliesview on HN

> 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?


Replies

devyyesterday at 10:58 PM

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.

show 1 reply
GuB-42today at 2:24 AM

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.

WhyNotHugotoday at 7:50 AM

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-toasttoday at 10:12 AM

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.

show 1 reply