51

Not only are you not required to change the licence, you are not permitted to. The code you took at the time was, according to you, conveyed under GPLv3. You've worked on it, and made a derivative work (in copyright terms), which you can only lawfully distribute under GPLv3 (see GPLv3 s5c). Note also that now upstream have relicensed, you cannot trivially ...


14

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 ...


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 ...


13

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 ...


12

Am I right assuming that the AGPL and GPLv3 are compatible? Yes, you can combine them, with the combination effectively being governed by the AGPL v3 license: GPL v3 section 13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed ...


11

MongoDB requires contributors to sign a contributor agreement where they have to waive all rights so that MongoDB can license the code subsequently under whatever license they see fit. That includes non-free licenses which allows them to sell proprietary extensions which would otherwise be in violation of the GPL, if they had to abide by it.


11

The first site you link to is a pretty good summary. Without wishing to criticise the quality of their software, the second site you link to is an incoherent ramble. It says In particular, if I modify the code within my company, am I obliged to make the source code available to internal users (employees of my company)? We wish to remove this ambiguity: for ...


11

We already have a question here about distributing the compiled binary form of a piece of proprietary software under an MIT licence. As we said there, it's basically formalised freeware: the binary can be freely distributed (and in principle, freely modified, for all the good it will do you) but it doesn't come with source. The use of the MIT licence for ...


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 provide ...


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

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 ...


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 ...


8

It is unfortunately fairly common for companies to overstate the restrictions of the AGPL. But as the AGPL states, additional restrictions can be removed. This answer is primarily based on the GPLv3 CommunityServer license you linked. But aside from the GPLv3 vs AGPLv3 point, the analysis is identical for the AGPLv3-covered DocumentServer which contains the ...


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

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

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 "...


7

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.


7

There is a lot of confusion regarding modification. You claim that "The lib's code is just used, not modified." That's a very narrow interpretation of modification. In court, integrating the library into your desktop application also counts as modification, hence you also need to open source the code of your desktop application. As Amon indicates, your use ...


7

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 ...


7

Everything you want is already possible without a CLA or copyright assignment. inbound=outbound is automatic for GPL-family licenses because it is not allowed to distribute modifications without offering them under the same xGPL license. Modifications to LGPL-licensed code can be distributed under the GPL, which could block you from receiving modifications ...


6

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 ...


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

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 ...


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