this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
284 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

84597 readers
3916 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I demand to see your source code