I mean, is the case you're making that you can run a SaaS business on GPL-derived code without fulfilling GPL obligations because you're not distributing a binary?

▲

eru 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, that's exactly what people do and did. That 'loophole' is the whole reason people came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...

▲

Akronymus 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I guess I am. I genuinly am just a layperson trying to look at what the law would say, so everything is speculation.

▲

advael 2 days ago | parent [-]

If true that would seem to invalidate the entire GPL, but even by that logic, a website (such as chatGPT) distributes javascript that runs the code, and programs like claude code also do so. Again, if you can slip the GPL's requirements through indirection like having your application go phone home to your server to go get the infringing parts, the GPL would essentially unenforceable in... most contexts

	▲	fragmede 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's where the AGPL comes in. The GPL(v2) does not require eg Google or Facebook to release any of the changes they've made to the Linux kernel. That they do so is not because of a legal obligation to do so. The "to get parts" thing is the relevant detail to be very specific on. If those parts are a binary that is used, then the GPL does kick in, but for distributing source code that's possibly derived, possibly not covered by copyright, it's not been decided in a court of law yet.