Your quote is misleading. The "at no charge" refers only to providing access to a server at no charge. If you wish you can provide the source and charge what it costs to physically perform the copy.
The intent is to provide access to the source code for no more than what you charged for access to the service itself. It doesn't mean that you necessarily will be out of pocket.
Putting your changes on GitHub or the equivalent and providing a link would satisfy the requirement completely. This is not exactly an onerous requirement unless your intent is to keep your changes secret.
The "That seems ... bad" part, really depends on your point of view, I guess. Letting all my temps, vendors, and contractors have access to this code means that any of them can inspect it for problems, learn from it, fix bugs, improve it for themselves and help others improve it.
That seems ... good ... to me, anyway.
At worst, they'll do nothing and I won't be any worse off. Of course, if I'm relying on secret source code to obfuscate my security holes, then perhaps I'll be in trouble, but I'm not about to do that. At best, I've turned my users into collaborators.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think this is bad.
>Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think this is bad.
You can't see why a Google lawyer would think it 'bad' for a temporary member of staff to be able to receive the full source (with licence to use and redistribute) for Google search, adwords, gmail etc etc?
The intent is to provide access to the source code for no more than what you charged for access to the service itself. It doesn't mean that you necessarily will be out of pocket.
Putting your changes on GitHub or the equivalent and providing a link would satisfy the requirement completely. This is not exactly an onerous requirement unless your intent is to keep your changes secret.
The "That seems ... bad" part, really depends on your point of view, I guess. Letting all my temps, vendors, and contractors have access to this code means that any of them can inspect it for problems, learn from it, fix bugs, improve it for themselves and help others improve it.
That seems ... good ... to me, anyway.
At worst, they'll do nothing and I won't be any worse off. Of course, if I'm relying on secret source code to obfuscate my security holes, then perhaps I'll be in trouble, but I'm not about to do that. At best, I've turned my users into collaborators.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think this is bad.