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

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#81

Post by yyyfb »

truthsocial wrote: post #43
yyyfb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIS and Al Qaeda are deplatformed too. Will you carry their speech?

We try to adhere to https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/

So not free speech?

Says you'll ban porn. Porn is free speech.

Says you'll ban spam. Unwanted commercial solicitation is free speech.

Says you'll ban incitement to violence and harassment. That is also free speech.

All that "free speech" means is that the government can't take a priori action to prevent it from happening. But there can be consequences.

All the popular platforms are free in that sense already. You will just have a boundary somewhere else for what you consider worthy of consequences.

Which is fine. I don't actually believe anyone enjoys a completely unpoliced platform. But maybe don't be so quick in saying you'll give a voice to the deplatformed, when you're a platform yourself and will ban people too for not adhering to your own speech police.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#83

Post by helpmefindpurp »

jrflowers wrote: post #8
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.

This is a good point because “frequently performed by” means “exclusively performed by”

[dead]

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#84

Post by gpm »

sgtnoodle wrote: post #79
gpm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Email is customary for some things of course, however I don't believe it is a "customary means of facilitating copying of software". Nor do I believe it is "providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server". It needs to be both to satisfy the license.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#85

Post by subsistence234 »

bigfatfrock wrote: post #66
bingbangboom wrote: post #57

[flagged]

Don't worry dude, you're still here.

the majority on this site are still relatively sane, as are the mods, but only 1% of users needs to be ideologically deranged to hide ideologically inconvenient comments with [flagged]

which is what happened, as predicted by the user.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#86

Post by subsistence234 »

choppaface wrote: post #44
truthsocial wrote: post #12

Thank you for your request (routed through legal, which added a day or so of latency). Main issue is we don't have an automated pipeline to update the published tarball/zipfile from our internal source control system, so it has to be done manually, and no one has that as a specific task. We also review the source for IP/security concerns before releasing. We will probably add a quarterly task to update it, until/unle…

> Main issue is we don't have an automated pipeline to update the published Main issue is probably that your team is too busy trying to one-up FTX https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-03/trump-spa...

there are five comments ITT that confuse developers of a platform with investors in a SPAC. weird mistake to make repeatedly.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#88

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

gpm wrote: post #49
margalabargala wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strictly speaking, the source code needs to be made to users upon request. It doesn't need to be proactively published. That's just the easiest way to do it. So it would be within the license to update "quarterly, and whenever someone bothers to ask".

I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).

That is how GPL has always worked. Before AGPL expanded the scope to network services, only people with possession of a binary containing GPL code had a right to request the source. You never have to publicly disclose the source beforehand and you can deliver it by any means you choose with a media fee if necessary. Tapes and paper listings are compliant. AGPL doesn't change the requirements for source delivery.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#89

Post by gpm »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #88
gpm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that's true (as discussed with citation to the license in reply to a sibling comment to your one here).

That is how GPL has always worked. Before AGPL expanded the scope to network services, only people with possession of a binary containing GPL code had a right to request the source. You never have to publicly disclose the source beforehand and you can deliver it by any means you choose with a media fee if necessary. Tapes and paper listings are compliant. AGPL doesn't change the requirements for source delivery.

The GPL and AGPL are two different licenses, and the clauses that require publishing source are very different. The GPL explicitly allows for the request based model, the AGPL (again, exact clause cited below in a sibling comment thread) does not. The AGPL also explicitly requires it be at no charge and be provided over the network.

Edit: Actually I'll just quote the relevant clause of the AGPL here again

> 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 interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

Re: Making Truth Social Comply with the AGPL

#90

Post by subsistence234 »

yyyfb wrote: post #81
truthsocial wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We try to adhere to https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/

So not free speech? Says you'll ban porn. Porn is free speech. Says you'll ban spam. Unwanted commercial solicitation is free speech. Says you'll ban incitement to violence and harassment. That is also free speech. All that "free speech" means is that the government can't take a priori action to prevent it from happening. But there can be consequences. All the popular platforms are free in that sense already. You wil…

> consequences

The Idi Amin school of civil rights: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech."

If you want to know what freedom of speech actually means in the USA, you should read up on the topic, for example starting here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/unprotected-speech-sy...

Even if you hate FIRE for defending the civil rights of people you hate, the article is succinct and contains links to the ca ten most relevant high level court cases.

Post reply on HN