GPL does not mean that the company has to provide a github repo. Strictly seen, the sources should be provided in case a user requests the them. (IANAL)
how can they possibly call it open source without providing the source code. Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access?
> Also on the website it says it is licensed under GPL, doesn't that entitle users to source code access?
What ? Why entitled ? I have some WIP and production ready code in some git repo on my company's network and it's MIT licensed but there is absolutely zero obligation to upload it on the internet.
Of course I don't go around making website about it so there's that.
Pretty sure those guys will upload the source code when they feel like it's the time to do it.
the GPL requires that you make the code available WHEN you distribute it. they have distributed it, thus yes, we are entitled to it as of the time of distribution, not whenever they feel like it in the future.
Not really in the way you are implying. You can either distribute it with the binary, or you can distribute it to someone who received a binary once they request it. The GPL doesn't require you post the source on GitHub or the internet at all.
The GPL applies to other users. There's no such thing as a license that applies to the person that wrote the code (that would imply that you could sue yourself for violations). They'd only be required to make the source available if they were using someone else's GPL code.
That is incorrect. If a company gives you a copy of the program under the GPL, then they must obey by that license because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license. And you can't call any other license the GPL (modifications are not permitted by the FSF).
Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license".
Not to mention that you don't know why they went with the GPL. Maybe they used some GPL code and thus have no choice in the license terms. So it would be a matter of the original copyright holders suing them for breach of license.
> If a company gives you a copy of the program under the GPL, then they must obey by that license because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license.
The GPL is a set of conditions that others have to obey if they want to use your code. How can you going to sue someone for violating the copyright on code that's not yours? If you see someone selling copied Tom Clancy novels on the street, you can't sue them. Only Tom Clancy and anyone else to whom he grants the copyright.
> because they made an implicit agreement with you to obey that license
> Ultimately it does become a matter of "suing the copyright holder for a license granted by that copyright holder", but it's definitely still not okay. By that logic, no copyright license can ever be expected to be honoured by the original author -- because "they own the copyright and thus cannot be sued for breach of license".
If the license promised delivery of source code then of course the author could be sued. But as far as I can tell, GPL (at least v3) makes no such promises. If you disagree, please point in the license text the part that you think applies.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
Emphasis on to the program's users.
So if you downloaded it and installed it, found out there is no source folder, as a user, you are therefore "entitled" to get the source code. Just like me, write to them and ask politely for a copy of the source code.
But I agree, it doesn't feel very "open source"