Timeline for Licensing my project derived from MIT and AGPL-3 licensed projects
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9 at 8:57 | comment | added | Dio Kiriie | All right I got the needed knowledge. So I already created repository and found out hat there was a file with other MIT licenses. Can I simply put all licenses of all the projects in my repository into a single file so it can be better. And is .md extension good for such file? | |
| May 9 at 8:54 | vote | accept | Dio Kiriie | ||
| Apr 29 at 15:04 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | The way I understand it is that if your project contains 3rd party GPL code and 3rd party AGPL code, you may distribute the project under a mixed licence: the previously-GPL bits under GPL, and the previously-AGPL bits under AGPL. AGPLv3 s13 is pretty clear about that, in its last sentence. If your interpretation (as I understand it) were right, I could file the AGPL down to GPL simply by combining an AGPL work with some small-but-copyrightable piece of code that I release under GPL. | |
| Apr 29 at 14:06 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | @MadHatter, the way I understand s13 is that if my project contains 3rd-party GPL code and 3rd-party AGPL code, then I can still distribute my project under the GPL license. Without s13, I would not be able to (legally) distribute my project. | |
| Apr 29 at 12:28 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @BartvanIngenSchenau s13 permits the work to be combined with code under GPL, but s13 also says that while the additional code may remain under GPL, the AGPL work must remain under AGPL. I understood you to say that the entire project needs to be distributed either under the AGPL, or under the GPL, which I do not think is what s13 permits. But I may misunderstand your meaning. | |
| Apr 29 at 11:08 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | @MadHatter, Clause 13 of the AGPL allows you to use AGPL code in an otherwise GPL-licensed project. | |
| Apr 29 at 8:40 | comment | added | Brandin | Probably technically it needs to be "compatible" with AGPL. I.e. what you said is probably technically correct "it's the easiest way" - but obviously code in there 'can' still be some other license like MIT as long as your distribution is done in a compatible way with AGPL. | |
| Apr 29 at 8:18 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @BartvanIngenSchenau I think AGPL requires redistribution under AGPL only; GPL isn't an option. Do you read it differently? | |
| Apr 29 at 8:11 | comment | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | @Brandin, better now? | |
| Apr 29 at 8:11 | history | edited | Bart van Ingen Schenau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 126 characters in body
|
| Apr 29 at 7:25 | comment | added | Brandin | "As you have an AGPL dependency, your project also needs to use the AGPL license. " - If the author is bringing in other MIT code already, why is it not OK to also apply the MIT license to author's new code that she is including ? This part is not clear in your answer. | |
| Apr 28 at 7:59 | history | answered | Bart van Ingen Schenau | CC BY-SA 4.0 |