I mean, it's _theoretically_ possible that they modified it to remove the link to the source, accidentally put it live, always intending to revert the modification before deliberately going live... but that's not winning any prizes for plausibility.
In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.
> In any case 'officially up' is likely irrelevant here.
That's not true, especially considering they took down the site as soon as it was noticed it was publicly facing.
If a company misconfigures a VPN and you're able to access an internal tool that would not be otherwise available to the public, but uses GPL code, that would not entitle you to the sources. Especially if the company immediately fixed the issue of the public having access to said internal tool, any reasonable court would side with them.
If the site re-launches without fixing the issue, though, that is a very different story.
Another thing that really should be considered here are the principles involved here...you can completely ignore 2015-current and still acknowledge the guy's long history of not paying contractors, ripping people off, going back on stuff he said, etc.. There's really no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt
Despite them being boilerplate, they come along with the removal of the existing license text. Still, I’ll reserve final judgement until 30 days pass or this letter is acknowledged.
