It's paying a bill in pennies.

It's not even that. Downstream projects host their own mirrors already, this is an annoying hoop to jump through for the maintainers (basically suck down a bunch of tarballs for every release, analogous to grabbing stuff from FTP sites back in the day), but not exactly a terrible hardship compared to the really very significant work of maintaining a large project.

▲

simoncion 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days, but, yeah, it's definitely not paying a thousand+ cent bill in pennies, and I'm skeptical that it's a violation of the letter of the GPL.

It is definitely a dick move by Google.

	▲	leni536 4 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		While I don't find any requirements on how timely the source distribution must be upon request, one can reasonably say that there must be a line between 1 nanosecond and 1 century.
	▲	jraph 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> There might be some merit to a claim that Google Drive isn't a medium customarily used for software distribution these days I suppose forcing a means to share the source code could have been too restrictive, but the GPL only speaks about the shape of the source code itself (it should be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it"), not how it is shared, so indeed, not a violation of the letter of the GPL I think. It's like what we had in France and the Hadopi, which requested ISPs to share the IP addresses of people torrenting a defined set of files. One of them sent them printed on paper... (But the malicious compliance was cool in this case).