> is this a license violation??
i'm pretty sure it's not technically a license violation because like, the GPL predates widespread use of the internet, so source code must only be available "upon request". the easiest way to implement that is "upon HTTP request" but sending as an attachment in response to human<->human communication is fine too i guess.
anyways so i contacted them and i'm not sure the rep fully understands the implications of GPL. i explained in no uncertain terms that "you are **required** to publish the latest source code to version 2.3.7 of the Lovense OBS toolset" and then they just responded along the lines of "Yeah. We're not providing the source code currently. We recommend using the pre-compiled Toolset 2.4.7 instead". i then reiterate that this is exactly why they **must** provide the source code. i also explained why the binaries won't work for me at all (which is irrelevant as this is a legal matter). and they just. sent a copy+paste of their previous response? so i clarified again "**you have a legal obligation to provide the source code**" and now they have "assigned a dedicated specialist to handle your case personally" who will "contact [me] very soon". i hope the specialist knows what the GPL is.
sodiboo :pride_heart:
npub1j3…ry2uc
2025-11-18 18:57:28 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…5ctn
Author Public Key
npub1j3w0f8cxz6rkt7jen58z9paevv9yne883xnt0xrew5zkakelns2sxry2ucSeen on
wss://relay.momostr.pinkPublished at
2025-11-18 18:57:28 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "10d251c1fed2a471e0854836fe0cd062dba992e430624b0227e45e58ca828505",
"pubkey": "945cf49f06168765fa599d0e2287b9630a49e4e789a6b7987975056edb3f9c15",
"created_at": 1763492248,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1b7a675fc0f1bdefbddf485e4f69b04fc4363429e4a85602ac2d83d98d5c9ea8",
"",
"root",
"945cf49f06168765fa599d0e2287b9630a49e4e789a6b7987975056edb3f9c15"
],
[
"e",
"78a5fbb0dadfb64a9140297e45f1fc0600062f97e7312e297e91afdac380ef08",
"",
"reply",
"945cf49f06168765fa599d0e2287b9630a49e4e789a6b7987975056edb3f9c15"
],
[
"p",
"945cf49f06168765fa599d0e2287b9630a49e4e789a6b7987975056edb3f9c15"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://gaysex.cloud/notes/af8i2d7kseg501wh",
"activitypub"
],
[
"L",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"l",
"pink.momostr.activitypub:https://gaysex.cloud/notes/af8i2d7kseg501wh",
"pink.momostr"
],
[
"-"
]
],
"content": "\u003e is this a license violation??\n\ni'm pretty sure it's not technically a license violation because like, the GPL predates widespread use of the internet, so source code must only be available \"upon request\". the easiest way to implement that is \"upon HTTP request\" but sending as an attachment in response to human\u003c-\u003ehuman communication is fine too i guess.\n\nanyways so i contacted them and i'm not sure the rep fully understands the implications of GPL. i explained in no uncertain terms that \"you are **required** to publish the latest source code to version 2.3.7 of the Lovense OBS toolset\" and then they just responded along the lines of \"Yeah. We're not providing the source code currently. We recommend using the pre-compiled Toolset 2.4.7 instead\". i then reiterate that this is exactly why they **must** provide the source code. i also explained why the binaries won't work for me at all (which is irrelevant as this is a legal matter). and they just. sent a copy+paste of their previous response? so i clarified again \"**you have a legal obligation to provide the source code**\" and now they have \"assigned a dedicated specialist to handle your case personally\" who will \"contact [me] very soon\". i hope the specialist knows what the GPL is.",
"sig": "fd29c918e40abc77ce7fd93ab9ed62e9364a4a1eeb2f2b5783b63f99e1763cc79191e78afcbe08deb12961b91816823ba9622322eed038974a962fbe053cc82d"
}