So we have been discussing the implications of the GNU AGPL/GPL 3.0 license on our distributed code. I will make things, extremely simple. I hope. We will use AGPL in this example.
We will write code. Our main application we will call -A-. -A- will be built with Docker via a Dockerfile (code will be copied into the image) and then the image will be run to create a running container. The code in -A- will try and connect to a broker on ip x.x.x.x port xxxx.
Our Dockerfile will be built on Debian.
We will now use a Docker image which has the license GNU AGPL 3.0. This is the broker that -A- will try and connect to. We will call this broker -Broker-.
We will have a docker-compose file in the code as well. Which will run the -Broker- image to create a running container, and then of course, run the -A- image to create a container which will then connect to the -Broker-. So everything consists of two images (-A- and the -Broker-) and some helper files (docker-compose and some scripts and docker-engine) to get those two images running. We will call all of this together our -Product-.
I hope I am very clear so far. We have only made code adjustments to -A- and the helper files. The only line specifying any relation to the -Broker- image is the following, which lies in the helper file code:
docker run --name broker the-agpl-licensed-image /bin/bash
1) Would the above line cause the entire -Product- to be licensed under GNU AGPL 3.0?
We would like to DISTRIBUTE our -Product-, which consists of the -A- image TOGETHER with the -Broker- image and the helper files in a tar file and sell this commercially. So the customer will not be downloading the -Broker- image, it will be included in the tar file they will receive.
2) Would the above inclusion of the -Broker- image file in the tar cause the entire -Product- to be licensed under GNU AGPL 3.0?
3) If instead of including the actual -Broker- file in the tar, and instead let the customer download it (when executing the
docker run command in the helper files), would this cause the entire -Product- to be licensed under GNU AGPL 3.0?
We wish to sell this commercially and not have to disclose the source code to the customer. I hope you understand how everything relates to each other in our product. I find everything revolving around copyleft to be confusing!