Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

boehs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#71

Post by db48x »

ok_dad wrote: post #68
db48x wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the law, these are just license terms.

Contract law covers licenses. Just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s not important to follow. Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

> do you think it’s okay to yadda yadda yadda

No, I never said that. You made it up yourself and pretended that I said it.

There is a difference between honoring an agreement between equals (such as a license) and obeying the law.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#72

Post by rvz »

ok_dad wrote: post #68
db48x wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the law, these are just license terms.

Contract law covers licenses. Just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s not important to follow. Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

> Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

Not defending Truth Social, but let's ask GitHub that same question after Microsoft trained on GPL and AGPL source code for its GitHub Copilot uses and it is known for outputting GPL and AGPL code. [0]

As Truth Social should comply with the AGPL, GitHub should do the same and open source the whole of Copilot.

[0] https://codeium.com/blog/copilot-trains-on-gpl-codeium-does-...

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#73

Post by h0l0cube »

monocasa wrote: post #53
buildbot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not IP, that's secrets. IP needs to be included.

Trade secrets are a type of IP.

They mean 'configuration secrets'. Those variables used for internal authorization and configuration that should never be leaked outside the organization. If source code of AGPL software is modified and used for an online service, it needs to be published in respecting the license, and best any 'trade secrets' are isolated. The only other alternatives are to use the code as-is or build a proprietary solution from scratch.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#74

Post by h0l0cube »

davorak wrote: post #37
buildbot wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not IP, that's secrets. IP needs to be included.

Logos, art, and similar? I would have guessed that would not need to be included.

Those would be provided by a CDN, with some storage service underneath that. Configuration secrets that (transitively) point to these services should be injected by the build system and have no business being in source code.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#75

Post by ok_dad »

db48x wrote: post #71
ok_dad wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract law covers licenses. Just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s not important to follow. Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

> do you think it’s okay to yadda yadda yadda No, I never said that. You made it up yourself and pretended that I said it. There is a difference between honoring an agreement between equals (such as a license) and obeying the law.

I never said you said it, I asked it. As stated previously, license are contract law.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#76

Post by [deleted] »

rvz wrote: post #72
ok_dad wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contract law covers licenses. Just because it’s not criminal doesn’t mean it’s not important to follow. Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true.

> Also, regardless of the fact this is contract law, do you think it’s okay to take code other made and use it without following the licenses? Especially for a rich media corporation? That’s shameful if true. Not defending Truth Social, but let's ask GitHub that same question after Microsoft trained on GPL and AGPL source code for its GitHub Copilot uses and it is known for outputting GPL and AGPL code. [0] As Truth…

[deleted]

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#77

Post by akira2501 »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #7
akira2501 wrote: post #3

> that the labor they exploit is frequently performed by liberals, queers, socialists, and other groups they’ve sworn to destroy You know... people with significantly different ideologies also write code.

I think the word is “frequently” which isn’t “exclusively” and the subject was “open source,” not code. I don’t think it’s controversial most free software / open source people fall into these categories much to the cryptofascist science denying qanon follower free software nerds dismay.

I'd even challenge "frequently" to the extent that it rises to an obvious point of "exploitation" when "their" code is used. It claims ownership and a position that is neither relevant the copyright issues presented nor, in my opinion, even true.

It's probably not controversial here on Hacker News, but many people live inside this HN valley bubble that's pretty solidly disconnected from the rest of the country and even the world. You've made this particular case here perfectly by attempting to connect identity to open source.

Which, I do find annoying, as many people make the same assumptions you do towards me in my work, as if presumptively pushing politics into an engineering conversation is a worthwhile or welcome activity. The mixture of faux shock and bullying in response is, sadly, nothing new to me either.

Anyways, you're welcome to openly have as closed of a mind as you like, but I will always find the behavior baffling and worthy of comment.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#78

Post by db48x »

ok_dad wrote: post #75
db48x wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you think it’s okay to yadda yadda yadda No, I never said that. You made it up yourself and pretended that I said it. There is a difference between honoring an agreement between equals (such as a license) and obeying the law.

I never said you said it, I asked it. As stated previously, license are contract law.

You imagined some meaning not present in the words I wrote, and asked me if that’s what I meant. This is a way of implying that my words had this imagined meaning. You should avoid doing that.

Contract law does not explicitly state that every provision of every contract must always be followed. By definition, contract law really has nothing to do with the specific circumstances of any particular agreement; if it did, it would just be a law about those circumstances and not about contracts. In fact, it was not until two years ago that a court acknowledged that the GPL really is a contract (https://sfconservancy.org/news/2022/may/16/vizio-remand-win/).

All I am saying is that you shouldn’t ask them not to try to weasel out of their obligations under “the law”, but instead to ask that they not try to weasel out of their obligations under the terms of the AGPL. This is a contract that they entered in to not just with the authors of the open–source software that they rely on, but also with their users. It would be dishonorable to renege.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#79

Post by sgtnoodle »

gpm wrote: post #32
dbmikus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, does AGPL require actively publishing the source code, or making it available upon request within a reasonable timeframe?

My understanding is it requires active publishing, but I'm not a lawyer. Here's what I believe to be the relevant section > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > 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…

Is email not customary? It seems like it would be fine as long as they respond in a timely manner, and provide access instructions. Also, in this situation it seems like that's exactly what happened.

I suppose what might be non-compliant is if their website doesn't explicitly document the process to access the source, i.e. "send an email to this addressm to request the most up-to-date source code."

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#80

Post by leereeves »

choppaface wrote: post #48
truthsocial wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty good! Relatively small team (between 10 and 100), biased toward senior with a few ~5 year more intermediate people, mostly remote across the US although we do have an office and try to get together monthly to quarterly. Ironically, lots of open source contributors. We are hiring for a few roles but mostly just being opportunistic rather than needing to hire. Remarkably little turnover for a tech company. We've…

It’s not political bias when your co-workers get caught and enter a guilty plea: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/03/business/trump-truth-soci...

Those were venture capitalists who invested in the acquiring SPAC, not workers at Truth Social.
Post reply on HN