2

I'm planning to create an AGPL licensed web app that should help you with organizing your life. I want to create it in Clojure but there are a few roadblocks that I want to avoid with additional permissions.

The issues are:

  • Clojure and many community libraries are licensed under the EPL 1.0 which is strictly incompatible with the AGPL. In order to avoid any potential issues with accidentally including an incompatible library, I would like to strictly allow any code under any EPL version.

  • I think that by adding additional permissions I would make the code incompatible with the MPL's sub-licensing mechanism. That's why I want to add an exception for this as well.

  • Appstore. I mainly intended to create a Progressive Web App but the iOS appstore might be a valuable distribution channel.

With the above requirements in mind, is this formulation acceptable?

Additional permission under GNU AGPL version 3 section 7

If you modify this Program or any covered work, by linking or combining it with any library (or a modified version of a library), containing parts covered by the terms of any version of the Eclipse Public License or Mozilla Public License, the licensors of this Program grant you additional permission to convey the resulting work.

As additional permission, you are allowed to distribute the software through a distribution channel, even if that distribution channel has restrictive terms and conditions that are incompatible with the AGPL, provided that the source is also available under the AGPL with or without additional permissions through a channel without those restrictive terms and conditions.

0

I am not a lawyer, but I don't see any glaring holes in those additional permissions.

The only thing that has me very slightly worried is the sentence about the Corresponding Source at the end of the first permission (Now removed in an update of the question). I had to read the license text very carefully to convince myself that it doesn't contradict the additional permission and I could understand it if someone else comes to a different conclusion.
As both the EPL and the MPL themselves also require that the source code is made available, this sentence should not be needed, so you might consider removing it is more people express their doubts.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.