PLEASE NOTE that this video does not apply to RF1, which is not bound by the GPL. This video only applies to the "BB" versions of RF, which are bound by the GPL.
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED because I have no interest in arguing with you or with creating a pile-on. All I want to do is respond to Preston's accusation that my assertion is irresponsible and unfounded.
---
Section 6 of the GPL v3 describes five ways that non-source code can be conveyed. Of those, only section 6d is consistent with what Raceflight was doing, during the period where they closed the github repo to public access, and were distributing .bin files via the Slack channel. k
Section 6d requires that source be available from the same place as the non-source file, which as far as I know, it was not. The Raceflight source was not available from the Slack channel at the time that .bin files were being distributed there. In fact, I don't believe that it was publicly available at all. If this is true, it is a violation of the GPL.
Preston and Kalyn have referred to "responding to requests" for source. They have said that they were not obligated to make the source available immediately. This is not consistent with my reading of the text of the GPL. Section 6d requires that the source be available from the same place that the non-source file is located. Section 6b of the GPL allows one to distribute non-source code without accompanying source, and respond to requests for source, but section 6b only applies if you are distributing the non-source code on a physical medium, which they were not.
Preston claims that you have to be an expert on the GPL to interpret it, but I disagree. Read it for yourself, right from the Raceflight source code, here:
https://github.com/rs2k/raceflight/blob/master/LICENSE#L245
