Where can free software projects get legal assistance and/or guidance regarding (A)GPL enforcement?
A site called altCensored[1] is violating the AGPL by using a modified version of Invidious without publishing the source code for their changes. See.[2] They deny being based on Invidious, but it is obvious. The frontend is nearly identical with similarly structured code and assets like icons copied verbatim. It seems unlikely that they will agree to publish their modifications without a credible threat of legal action. The only resource I am aware of for help with GPL enforcement is the Software Freedom Conservancy, which provides legal assistance for member projects. I proposed that Invidious apply to become a member project, but I wonder if there are other resources or guides on what to do in this situation.
Sorry, forgot the second link:
There was gpl-violations.org which focused on GPL v2 software. I can't seem to find their mailing lists anymore.
... Did anyone notice their site has an image of gnu with cross-hairs over it. Not sure how that represents saving GNU.
The FSF can only enforce the license on works to which we hold the copyright, but we can still help bring about compliance even when the copyright lies elsewhere. If you need help with enforcement, please don’t hesitate to contact us at name at domain.
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/
Typically only the copyright holder can enforce the license so that's the first step: Getting them involved. They may want to look into http://softwarefreedom.org/about/contact/
Hm. Omarroth is the creater of Invidious who is the rights holder for most of the code, but given that he has announced[1] his intention to step away from Invidious development and from "open source", he may be reluctant to get involved in this.
There are a few other contributors who have contributed a non-negligible amount of code, though none nearly as much as omarroth.[2] Since they did not sign a CLA, they are still the rights holders for the code they wrote. Could one or more of them take on the role of enforcement?
"Could one or more of them take on the role of enforcement?"
Sure.
http://web.archive.org/web/20191101000000*/https://altcensored.com
When did Omarroth say that he was stepping down? This website is hella recent, maybe they are aware that Omar might not care anymore?
What about the Software Freedom Conservancy ? They have a section on their site to report GPL violations via email to name at domain
If the project isn't under their umbrella they may still be able to give some advice.
Just to clarify, omarroth jumped into the discussion and stated that altcensored is not an invidio.us fork: https://gitlab.com/altCensored.com/altcensored
However, I agree with chaosmonk that they were obviously borrowing some code.
altcensored put up their source code on gitlab after chaosmonk raised the issue on the invidio.us github page: https://gitlab.com/altCensored.com/altcensored
So, I guess the process has worked itself out. They needed to make their source code available, chaosmonk raised the issue in a place where the original license holder would be aware, and altcensored appears to have gotten the message and come into compliance, with the original license holder in agreement. Case closed?
> Just to clarify, omarroth jumped into the discussion and stated that altcensored is not an invidio.us fork: https://gitlab.com/altCensored.com/altcensored
> However, I agree with chaosmonk that they were obviously borrowing some code.
Thanks, I had meant to post an update to this thread but forgot. Yes, it turns out that although altCensored uses some of Invidious's stylesheets, it has its own backend, so it is not a complete Invidious fork, but because they combined their code with some of Invidious's they still needed to comply with the AGPL.
> altcensored put up their source code on gitlab after chaosmonk raised the issue on the invidio.us github page
I wasn't the one who raised the issue initially, but it does seem likely that they published their source code in response to the Github issue, to which someone directed their attention on Twitter.
> Case closed?
Yeah, now that they have published their source code under the AGPL I see no problem.
