All Proton Drive apps are now open source
https://slrpnk.net/post/13678862
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ZeroCool@slrpnk.net
It took me going to their GitHub to find out, but it’s GPL 3.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
What does this mean practically
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
It means it can’t ever become proprietary closed-source software (not without a major lawsuit).
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
Well… The branded web apps could (they could add a proprietary shell around the GPL software, or evoke from scratch). But that seems difficult and unlikely.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from naught101@lemmy.world
Any new open source software is always a net positive.
But, there are a few small caveats (depending on how cynical/cautious you are):
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from ambitiousslab@lemmy.ml
They can’t do that actually. They can close the source, yes, but if they do they can’t then release the new closed-source version to the public.
From the GPL FAQ page:
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
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. [Emboldened by me.]
Alternatively:
Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.
Does the license prohibit this? Definitely. Could they get away with it? Probably. Though I’m uncertain Proton would go that far. I mean, if they wanted to prevent forks, they wouldn’t have released the source, let alone with the GPL3 license, which requires the right to make modifications (as that’s one of the Four Freedoms).
Technically true, I suppose, though again why they would do that is beyond me. If they didn’t want forks, they likely wouldn’t have allowed forks.
Again, this is all assuming I’m understanding the GPL FAQ page correctly. If I’m wrong, I would welcome someone smarter than me to correct me. :)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
The way I understand it is that they can relicense it and then publish it if they want, but the GPL would still fully apply to the previous versions.
The first question you cited seems to refer to any different organisation/individual making changes to the source code. And the second seems to refer to revoking the GPL for an already released version, which they would of course not be allowed to do.
This would make sense as ownership of the copyright would supersede a license.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from AwakenedAce@lemmy.blahaj.zone
“releasing the modified version to the public” would cover them re-closing the source and then subsequently releasing that newly closed source, so they can’t relicense it and then release the built version of the code.
At least not easily, this is where court history would likely need to be visited because the way it’s worded the interpretability of “modified” in this context would need to be examined.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
Not a lawyer but in the scenario where proton closed the source but kept offering the build, even if gpl3 still applies since they’re the only copyright holder (no contributions) it’d only give them grounds to sue themselves?
From gnu.org:
The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; free licenses in general are based on copyright. In most countries only the copyright holders are legally empowered to act against violations.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from myliltoehurts@lemm.ee
Oh, yes but the DRM exemption clause means that you can backwards engineer the changes and continue releasing them under GPL
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
Oh that is a SHAME.
DuckStation is such a wonderful piece of software too. :(
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
IANAL, but AFAIK that’s incorrect. If you’re the only copyright holder, you can issue multiple licenses for your work. GPL doesn’t allow you to rescind previous issues, so anyone in possession of your GPL code can still modify and release it under the GPL freely. But it doesn’t prevent you from issuing your own work under a different license.
There isn’t usually much economic sense for most applications to do that because anyone can fork the project and distribute it for free. For Proton, since they still hold the server as closed source, they could simply introduce a breaking protocol change and all the forks would be useless.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from acockworkorange@mander.xyz
I’d expect free software people to not have the funds to sue corporations. Are there any examples of these major lawsuits I can take a look at? I do remember a telecom company in France was fined quite a large sum but that was reported as a rare incident.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Quail4789@lemmy.ml
Any GPL violations would be reported to the Software Freedom Conservacy, who would go to court on the dev’s behalf.
There was a major lawsuit back in 2022 between the SFC and Vizio, and the SFC won.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
It’s pretty much not reversible and the code is free to use, modify, and distribute forever. And if you do modify it you also must make those changes open source.
Very good news
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bdonvr@thelemmy.club
gpl v3 you can do pretty much anything but you have to put it the same license but it has like drm protections and Anti-Tivoization and also has some patent protections people find this license too strict
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Mwa@lemm.ee
Its actually more restrictive, in a good way.
You can’t, for example, fork it, make changes, and sell that derivative software without releasing the source code
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from delirious_owl@discuss.online
yeah but drm is too strict for some people and anti tivozation this is why linux did not do gpl 3.0 or later
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Mwa@lemm.ee This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini