Quoting the first tweet:

> Google replaced pushing Git tags for certain source code with obtaining source code via Google Drive after making a request through Google Forms. It's completely ridiculous and they've gradually become very slow at handling requests. They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now.

▲

petcat an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> They're in clear violation of the GPLv2 now.

I don't think they are? They could just as easily require requests for the source code to be made through the regular mail instead of a Google form. It's still (maliciously) compliant with the license.

▲

logological 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I don't think they are?

If filling out the source code request form via Google Forms and/or accessing the download link via Google Drive requires the requester to run non-free (or at least non-GPLv2) JavaScript, then maybe it is in violation of section 6 of the GPLv2 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein") since the requester is then required to accept an entirely different set of licensing terms and conditions.

▲

nomel 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

IANAL, but I don't think you're interpreting that correctly.

I believe section 3.b and 3.c are the rights this is referring to, where you can request the source, and even be changed for the physical act. Suggesting this extends to the license of the implementation of their contact system doesn't make sense. No method of contact, except physical, is going to meet your requirements, including sending postage, where the software used to sort your mail is not GPL.

	▲	r3trohack3r 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think it’s nuanced I can see an argument that Google is requiring you to enter into a separate agreement with them (the terms they require you to agree to when using Google Forms) to request access to the GPL licensed source. You do not enter into an agreement with the vendor of the software the postal service uses to sort your mail.

▲

rlpb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Didn't Google work very hard to avoid any GPL in Android, apart from the kernel? What is in there that is GPL?

	▲	cute_boi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I assume Linux. I am very thankful linux is gpl. Because of GPL these tech giants are forced to release source code.

▲

gowld an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How slow is "very slow" ? What is "certain source code"? Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem?

Here is the form:

https://source.android.com/opensourcerequest

This is interesting:

> We might charge you a fee to cover the cost of processing. Your request must be sent according to whichever of the following rules applies:

> Within three years of the date you received the product from Google that included the component or binary files that are the subject of your request.

That "three years" is the minimum named in the GPLv2: https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0

	▲	HarlequinHair an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> How slow is "very slow?" The answer can be found two replies after: > Initially, Google would usually provide access to the tarballs within a couple hours. Lately, they're often taking weeks to get back to us. They're the ones who chose to use this archaic system instead of pushing Git tags and it's their responsibility to handle requests promptly. > What is "certain source code"? The OP seems to be GrapheneOS, which heavy patches AOSP. I guess the context is Android source code and its security patches. > Why is the OP being so coy about describing the problem? Not sure what you mean, I think they are explicit enough. I guess it's clear enough for developers how an upstream update should go. If people depend on big projects like AOSP, devs should be prompt in delivering source code, especially when it is mandatory by license. Can you give us more details on how/why you think the OP is being coy?