In theory, this is the kind of thing that the GPL v3 was trying to address: roughly speaking, if you host & run a service that is derived from GPL-v3'd software, you are obliged to publish your modifications.
But, I agree with you - and I don't think the author had really thought through what they were demanding, they made no mention of licensing other than singing happy praises of FOSS as if that would magically mean you could trust what a search engine was doing.
> In theory, this is the kind of thing that the GPL v3 was trying to address: roughly speaking, if you host & run a service that is derived from GPL-v3'd software, you are obliged to publish your modifications.
You're right... I'm misremembering the GPL, wikipedia says that it was only 'Early drafts of GPLv3 also let licensors add an Affero-like requirement that would have plugged the ASP loophole in the GPL' - I hadn't realised it never made it into the final version.
> In theory, this is the kind of thing that the GPL v3 was trying to address: roughly speaking, if you host & run a service that is derived from GPL-v3'd software, you are obliged to publish your modifications.
But, I agree with you - and I don't think the author had really thought through what they were demanding, they made no mention of licensing other than singing happy praises of FOSS as if that would magically mean you could trust what a search engine was doing.