[whateveracct]

> What standing does the Software Freedom Conservancy have to do pursue this in court themselves? Are they authors of Mastodon?

They are users of software built on AGPL (Mastodon) and therefore have a right to have access to that source code.

[ayende]

Not as I understand it. In this case, you have two parties, the open source project (Mastodon) and the site itself.

If the site is using the project, it should do so under the license. You, as a user of the site, have rights under that license.

However, the fact that the license terms are violated does not give _you_ a cause of action. The site didn't enter into any contract with you. For there to be a standing, you need the authors of the project to say something.

Even then, note that the issue is the use of copyrighted code, not the fact that the users didn't get the code.

If you complied with the license, and the copyright holder came to you and said, give me money, you could point to the license and say that you are in good standing.

But that doesn't work the other way around, but IANAL.