14

The quote appears to be misleading. According to “Why did you decide to write the GNU Affero GPLv3 as a separate license?” in the GPL FAQ, early drafts of the GPLv3 allowed an AGPL-like restriction to be added to the license (compare the Additional Terms mechanism in Section 7 of the GPLv3). This was dropped during the public review process: some ...


12

Yes, you can use a GPL3 library [1] in an AGPL3 program [2]. You can also cut-and-paste GPL3 code into an AGPL3 program. Both the ordinary GNU GPL, version 3, and the GNU Affero GPL have text allowing you to link together modules under these two licenses in one program. (from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html ) Obviously, you should make ...


11

I wrote to the FSF's licensing team about this question: [...] Does this [section 13] mean that if I run a *completely unmodified* AGPL-licensed program as a network service, I am *not* required to offer the source code to network users? And I received this response (bracketed phrase added by me): [...] If you haven't modified the software then you ...


10

I'm not a lawyer, but let's talk about what the AGPL requires, and how it forms derivative works. If your server uses the AGPL libraries in a way that creates a new work, then your entire work that uses the libraries is covered under the AGPL. Since, in that case, your server is a modified version of AGPL software, you must offer the source code for the ...


10

This is a detailed analysis, but note that I am not a lawyer, cannot give you reliable advice, and am only looking at the terms of the AGPL, not at relevant law in your jurisdiction. Companies that publish a “community edition” under the AGPL routinely interpret that license more restrictively than sensible. This is understandable since they are protecting ...


9

However I think only AGPL-3.0 requires build/install instructions according to the following links.[...] [and not the LGPL-2.1] Am I right? Nope. These links are not the license proper. Just commentaries about it (and based on what I can see incomplete commentaries). You should rely on the license text instead. Our legal team claims we should ...


9

There are several Q&A about the AGPLv3 on this site and some answers are sending vague or mixed signals. Here is a (hopefully) clear and definitive answer with references. First the AGPLv3 is essentially the same license as the GPLv3 with the addition of Section 13 as you can see in this side-by-side diff of the two license texts: Remote Network ...


8

According to Philippe Ombredanne, one can use an unmodified AGPL library in a closed source web application. I quote: I cannot fathom how you could consider that "Software that is based on/is linked with/uses an AGPL library is considered software that modifies the software" is a possible interpretation any way I look at it. If there are no modified bits, ...


8

The GPL license family consists of three kinds of licenses: The GPL is the most widespread variant. If you include GPL software into your software, you can only distribute the result under the terms of the GPL. Those terms include providing your source code. The AGPL is the same as the GPL, but also requires you to offer the source if users only interact ...


8

There are such licenses, but they are not generally recognized as open source. If you are interested in background, I'd recommend looking at the OSI review process of the “Convertible Free Software License”, e.g. as summarized by me here. That license was later rejected by the OSI. Key problems of forced-publication licenses: Contributors are copyright ...


7

If the the services together form a derivative work under copyright, then the AGPL source-sharing provisions apply to the entire work, and you must share the source code for the entire work. If they do not form a new work (i.e., they are considered independent program-works that merely happen to interact with one another), then the source-sharing provisions ...


7

AFAIK, no case law about the AGPL exists, and opinions differs as to what actions results in the creation of a derivative work. Until case law exists, we cannot know for sure. OSI's Lawrence Rosen (along with colleague Michael B. Einschlag) seem to say that the only thing that will result in a derivative, is modification of core files. If their ...


7

The AGPL licenses of GhostScript and iTextSharp require your application to be licensed under the AGPL as well. This allows options 1 and 2. Option 3 is simply impossible without the expensive commercial iTextSharp license. You can't Open Source your whole application for the reason you already mentioned, you don't own all the IP. In the end, the problem ...


7

Section 13 of the AGPLv3 says ...if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version... So when do you modify the program? The license text says: To "modify"...


6

Most of your questions already have answers so I will just link to them: Is there any difference between the GPL and AGPL for code executed in the browser? For code in the browser, there is no practical difference between GPL and AGPL 3.0. So yes, you have to distribute the JS source code when using this library. If a part of the client-side code is ...


6

License compatibility matters when you want to use someone elses code that was published under one license in your code base under a different license. For code that is written entirely by you, you own the copyright and can issue licenses however you wish. This includes dual-licensing. Dual licensing is quite common: some web apps use a AGPL/commercial dual ...


6

This is a misunderstanding. The previous paragraphs talk about the requirements for the GPL and LGPL. Since the LGPLv3 is written as the GPL plus a set of extra permissions, you need to include both COPYING for the GPL and COPYING.LESSER for the LGPL additions. In contrast, the AGPL is independent from the GPL and is contained in a single license text. So ...


6

The AGPL is no different from the GPL in this regard: the license only applies to the software, not the output created with the software. An AGPL compiler for example can be used to produce proprietary software of any license, and likewise any PDFs you create with an AGPL software are not required to be AGPL themselves. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....


6

If that's what you want, then yes, the AGPL would be better. The GPL makes no restrictions on those who don't distribute the software but only make it available to interact with over a network.


6

As their website makes clear, the product is dual-licensed, under AGPL3 and a commercial license. If you choose to use it under AGPL3, you (broadly) have permission to copy and/or change that code (strictly, to make a modified work) provided that when you distribute the work, whether modified or unmodified, or give access to it over a network, you do so ...


6

Is it possible as project owner to sell an alternative license to customers (if needed) which does not respect the copyleft? Yes, provided you are the rights-holder of the entire codebase, or you have the clear agreement of all other rights-holders (see next section). If yes do I need to ask all contributors to do that or do I need to ask them before ...


6

I believe that technically, unless you use a "clean room" recreation of the API calls, your project should fall under the GPL terms. If you use blender or its source in any way to re-create the function definitions for your code, then you are copying GPL code. Also note that an addon or script that uses the blender API falls under the GPL terms, as noted in ...


6

If I understand correctly, what you're concerned about is that other people will take your free software, change it in a way that makes it unreliable, and either convey it or provide it as a service to unsuspecting end-users who then assume it works just like the software they know you wrote. This is a question of brand identity, scientific implications ...


6

Making calls to a public API If there's a public API server that has it's source code licensed with AGPL, and if I make an app that uses these public endpoints in some part of it, ... is this considered as "derivative work" thus oblige me to license my code with AGPL too? No. A derivative work is only possible if you've copied at least some part of the ...


6

Since you've examined the code of HUSTOJ and are creating a very similar work, you are legally preparing a derivative work of HUSTOJ. Generally, no, you may not license a derivative of a GPLv2-licensed work under the GPLv3 or AGPLv3. See the GPL FAQ's compatibility matrix, which indicates the incompatibility (and note the statement of GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ...


5

If you are the sole developer or if you hold the copyright on all the code for other reasons, you can do with it as you please. The model you mentioned is using a strong copy-left license and selling exceptions to it. People who want to use your code in non-free software have to pay for this exception and they then get your code under a different license. ...


5

Interesting question - even after a few reads of the AGPLv3.0, I do not see where it requires you to make the source code available if you run an unmodified copy of the software on your server. However, the FSF's page about the motivation to use the AGPL, Why the Affero GPL, contains the following claim: If some program on this server is released under ...


5

The Short Answer: No The Long Answer: The derivative definition is based on copyright law and not a license, and I can't see how a remote web services interface could ever be construed as anything other than separate from the server involved. You are interacting with a service, not including it in your code. A service provider MAY be able to constrain ...


5

In other words: What should I point out in my CLA? Do I need any other contract with the contributor? What are the typical pitfalls to watch out for? In order to offer both licenses, you would need to be and stay the primary or sole copyright holder. You would effectively need a CLA where contributors grant you enough rights to relicense using both licenses ...


5

No, the licenses would apply identically, as in both cases the program is being conveyed to the end user. The AGPL's additional clause only applies when the user interacts with but does not receive the program. I would note that both the GPL and AGPL define "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". This means that if ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible