[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.