Hot answers tagged

14

AGPL is an OSI approved license. An open source license cannot permit who can use it, as per section 5 of the open source definition: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. I am not a lawyer, but the terms of the AGPL and the statement mentioned in the question that "The author [sic] has the permission to prohibit a ...


13

The most important point you need to consider is that software licenses are irrevocable - i.e. once you have released a specific version of the code under the GPL, it is available under the GPL for ever, and there's nothing you or anyone else can do about that. This means that your first two options (relicensing some or all of the existing codebase from GPL ...


12

It seems to me there are two ways to interpret what you propose. Either a) you make the software is available to all under AGPLv3, except John Smith, who may not take a copy under any terms, or b) you make the software is available to all under AGPLv3, with the additional proviso that John Smith is never allowed to use it. In the case of (a), anyone who isn'...


6

The final quote you include correctly states that the AGPLv1 is incompatible with the GPLv2. However, the AGPLv3 is compatible with the GPLv3. The BSL's requirement of GPL compatibility is “compatible” means that software provided under the Change License can be included in a program with software provided under GPL Version 2.0 or a later version I read ...


5

My understanding is that: a. Backend service is a modified version of GPL covered work (dynamically linking considered as modification, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic) They call it a combined work, but close enough, yes. b. Backend service isn't conveyed/distributed, because the interaction is done over the network (see ...


4

Different licenses have different conditions. The GPL triggers requirements when distributing a covered work (in whole or in part, in modified or unmodified form). Additionally, the SSPL triggers requirements when offering the software as a service. When using an SSPL-covered software as part of a software system, without offering this SSPL-covered software ...


3

If I am the sole copyright holder, I can distribute under any license I wish. Now "AGPL with one exception" is not AGPL obviously. I don't know about AGPL, but the GPL license is protected by copyright, and comes with a license that allows you to copy it unchanged, but does NOT AT ALL allow you to make any changes. Assuming AGPL is the same, you ...


3

The Community edition is available under a GPL license, which allows use for any purpose including commercial use. And if you don't give anyone else a copy of Neo4j and don't modify the software, the GPL doesn't impose any further obligations on you. So use in a SaaS setting seems perfectly fine. Of course, you might find that the feature set of the ...


3

The AGPLv3 is the same license as the GPLv3, with an extra section that requires you to provide the source code when you modified the AGPLv3-covered software, and users interact with the software remotely over a network. Since you haven't modified the AGPL-covered software, we can treat it as the GPLv3 for this discussion. So would the use of a GPLv3-...


2

What this author has signed in not a Contributor License Agreement, giving the project additional (non-exclusive) rights in addition to what they get under the AGPL, but a transfer of copyrights (CTA, Copyright Transfer Agreement). This means that the AGPL project owns the copyrights on the contribution and the author has just as many rights as anyone else ...


2

The author has the copyright, so he can relicense from the license point of view. But the CLA is not a license, but a contract. And you need to read the contract to know what it allows and what not. One possiblity is, that the contributor signed that he will not license the code other than to the company the CLA is for or AGPL for the general public. Another ...


2

The lack of clarity around the SSPL's definition of a “service” is part of the reason why this isn't a good license. The SSPL does provide a definition, but it might have a surprising scope. Below, I first recap some discussion on this definition, and then try to apply the SSPL's definition to your scenarios. During the OSI license-review process of the SPPL,...


2

(I am not a lawyer and therefore this is not "legal advice") If you really received the program under the terms of the AGPL v3, then look at section 7, third-to-last paragraph: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part ...


1

The library is indeed AGPL. Using it requires(*) the entire piece of software into which it is linked to be released under AGPL. The "entire piece of software" will definitely be the whole of the plugin module that uses it; depending on the degree of integration between your core software and its modules, it may well be the whole of your codebase....


1

Does your application actually depend on that particular repository to function, or could it work with any repository that contains appropriately formatted and named blocklists? I expect it would be the latter and in that case, there is no problem at all. Do SaaS DNS resolvers (like NextDNS and us, RethinkDNS) that use these blocklists (host files) violate ...


1

The AGPL license contains all the same terms and conditions that the GPL license also has. This means that if you use an AGPL licensed library, you must make the entire (C#) application available under the AGPL or GPL license. And that also means you must make the source code available to those who interact with your website under clause 13 of the AGPL.


1

The owner of the complete source code is not limited to the list of official versions of any license. It is possible to write the license in the way "All terms of the known GPL license apply for everyone except John Smith". Changes are not permitted in the licenses but should be possible to reference them in any context. However such licenses are ...


1

No. The AGPL is more targeted: if someone modifies an AGPL-covered program, then they must offer the program's source code to all users who interact remotely over a network with that program. The AGPL is a copyright-based license: it draws its legal power from the copyright of the program's authors. It cannot have any effect on other unrelated software. So ...


1

How do we usually these open source AGPL license softwares either for internal org or commercial products. Where do you make changes to this source code? Clone and do a local change and commit in your private repos? Or you need to fork on the same git and update there? Copyright licenses like the AGPL don't concern themselves with the nitty gritty details ...


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