[bachmeier]

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.

[cyphar]

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.

[bachmeier]

> 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

So Microsoft is bound by the license on MS Word?

[cyphar]

> The GPL is a set of conditions that others have to obey if they want to use your code.

Or distribute it. If someone distributes something to you under a license that explicitly states that it gives you certain permissions, they can't arbitrarily decide to retract that license. That's sort of like saying "if I write a song, and give you a license that allows you to get the sheet music from me, I can refuse to give you sheet music if you ask". If you didn't want to give me sheet music, why did you explicitly give me the right to do it? On some level it sounds like a breach of contract, though of course licenses aren't contracts.

Also you've forgotten that maybe Publii is based on some GPL source code, so they might not be the sole author and thus are infringing on someone else's copyright by not obeying the GPL.

> So Microsoft is bound by the license on MS Word?

Yes, of course they are! That's the whole point! If you read Section B of the Microsoft Word 2013 License[1], it states quite explicitly that:

* In §B4, all disagreements outside of small claims or negotiations will be handled in a binding arbitration. This applies to both parties.

* In §B5, neither party can engage in a class-action suit (they must all be done on an individual basis).

* In §B7, it states that claims have to be filed within one year. That also will apply to both parties.

They also give you a limited warranty for non-trial software in the last section, which obviously they are also bound by. Obviously terms in the license that don't limit Microsoft don't affect them. But with the GPL, it explicitly states that distributors must provide the corresponding source code.

I think I know what you're trying to say, "are you saying that Microsoft employees are bound to the single-seat terms of the license". But that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft.

[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms

[bachmeier]

> Also you've forgotten that maybe Publii is based on some GPL source code, so they might not be the sole author and thus are infringing on someone else's copyright by not obeying the GPL.

My comment was three sentences and I said exactly that in the third sentence.

> that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft

Okay. That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL, and does not need to distribute the source.

[cyphar]

> My comment was three sentences and I said exactly that in the third sentence.

You didn't say exactly that, you said:

> 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.

While I understand your point, the fact that you cannot personally sue them does not change the fact that they're infringing on someone's copyright (so _someone_ could sue them). The point of this discussion is not whether you or I could sue them, but rather are they breaching the GPL by not releasing source.

> That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL,

Odd, because that's not what I said. At all. What I said was that a Microsoft employee is bound by a different license than a random consumer. This was immediately after I explicitly outlined several cases where Microsoft's EULA clearly places restrictions on Microsoft.

Microsoft distributes software under a EULA, and they have to act in accordance with what that EULA says (just like you do as the recipient of said software). The EULA is not symmetric in its restrictions (unlike the GPL) so I recognise the cause of confusion, but just because Microsoft isn't bound by the no-redistribution policy of the EULA (because that's explicitly only required of people who are receiving the software) doesn't mean the EULA doesn't apply to them...

[zokier]

> 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.

[cyphar]

Section 6 of GPLv3 gives several options for how a purveyor must provide the source code. I haven't personally checked through the entire list and seen whether any method is provided by this project -- I'm sure someone else has the free time to go write up an email about it.

My comment was responding to someone saying that even if someone gave you code they authored under GPLv3, that you couldn't expect them to honour the terms of the license.

As an aside, I just noticed that the license text on their website is not a verbatim copy of the GPLv3 license text (which is not permitted). In particular, it's missing the copyright, version, date, and the epilogue that describes how to use the license for your own works.

[zokier]

"You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways [...]"

"You" in this context meaning the licensee, not the licensor. I don't see anything in Section 6 (or elsewhere) that creates any obligations for the licensor. My naive reading of the license indicates that the licensee can redistribute ("convey") the software only if they also convey the source code. But if they are unable to do so (because the source was not conveyed to them) then they simply may not redistribute the software at all.