Hot answers tagged

15

No, a receiver of services provided using MongoDB has no standing to enforce its license. Only a copyright holder can do that, and they've promised not to (which, at least in English law, means that they cannot), so there is nobody who is in a position to legally require you to comply with the actual text of the license. Effectively, the MongoDB team have ...


10

Jules' answer is exactly right. Allow me to intensify the final "why do it this way?" point. AGPL says others cannot improve MongoDB privately, then offer services based on their "enhanced versions," without at least making those improvements available to MongoDB, Inc. (among others). The AGPL is a response to criticism in the open source community that ...


9

While such a license might exist, it would not be an Open Source license (as per the accepted definition, of which it fails to meet roughly half the conditions), let alone Free (Libre) Software. You are publishing source code, but that alone doesn't make it Open Source - otherwise, the software I write for my day job (we deliver sources to most of our ...


8

AFAIK, the typical GPL variants apply only to your work "as a whole", and the MIT license is "compatible" with GPL. That means, if parts of your program are under MIT license, that is fine, as long as you do obey to the terms of the MIT license for that part (which is what you have in mind). And the only requirement that license states is ... "The above ...


7

The Affero GPL is an extention/alternative GPL that forbids the "service loophole" where it is perfectly OK to use GPL code behind some network service without acknowledging it since you never distribute the code to the users, only the results.


7

If you are asking about license that forces to attach source to every binary copy somehow, I highly doubt that somebody wrote something like this; since it implies that any software under this license would be at least twice larger than usual, which is not crucial, of course, but still is quite onerous for end-user. If you are interested in licenses that ...


6

There are no explicit restrictions on use in commercial products, only on distribution of derived works (or use as a service for AGPL code) without distribution of their source code. So, if you want to use this library, you will either have to comply with the GPL license or pay for it to be licensed under annother license. Comply with the GPL/AGPL license ...


6

The AGPL has a clause in it that specifically closes the loophole of the application (because it is a web application) not actually being distributed. All users are granted access to all of the application's source code. However, if you can demonstrate that iText is not required for your application to function, but merely adds an additional feature to it,...


6

You can sell your application. There is no limitation on this. But you have to provide the source code of your created application to your customer if he wishes and your customer can do whatever he wants with the application (even giving it to other people for free). You can charge your service e.g. developing extensions for your application or fixing bugs....


5

In general, as long as you are not "conveying" the work, copyleft does not apply. FSF doesn't consider "internal use" a form of conveyance. If you later expose your service as an external API on the Internet, that is considered conveyance under the AGPL. To comply with AGPL terms, you would have to open-source any other software that you also intend to ...


5

The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) is not that different from the GNU General Public License, but with considerations for software-as-a-service. Under the GNU GPL, you would not need to distribute your source code if you made modifications to a project released under the GPL, but provided it as a service. Under the AGPL, you must release your ...


5

Sure thing - none of the GPL licenses, including AGPL, forbids commercial activity. See http://www.affero.org/oagf.html for more information. Moreover, there are plenty of software with well established commercial ecosystem around it. MongoDB and RhodeCode what I recall from the top of my head.


5

The short answer is no, especially not if you expect others to build the clients. If you are building this server software with the intention of others building clients, they are communicating at arms length with each other, and are therefore seperate works and so the requirements of the AGPL do not apply to the clients. You also could not practically ...


5

This is covered in the GNU faq: the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Using them does not place any restrictions, legally, on the license you use for your code. The licensing aspects only apply to extending the IDE itself.


4

What you are talking about, limiting redistribution, goes against the definitions of open source and free software. If you find such a license, it won’t be either of those. So, I recommend you get a lawyer and you two come out with the terms of the license you are thinking about, with whatever other restriction you might want to add, and whatever freedom ...


4

In this case, the difficult legal test is deciding whether your data-consuming application can legally be considered "combined with" your AGPL data-producing application. The FSF proposes that two programs must communicate "at arms length" to be considered separate works. (The tricky bit about this rule is that no one is entirely sure how ...


4

You never need to publish anything with the (A)GPL. You only ever need to make available the source code to those persons to whom you also make available a binary (and with the AGPL also to those users whom you let use your binary over the network).


4

You may not re-release Ffmpeg under AGPL, as doing so imposes new restrictions on distribution, which is in violation of the original GPL license the software was distributed to you by. Only the copyright holders of ffmpeg may create an AGPL licensed release.


4

Never ever commit secrets to source control. And by extension, never build a container image that includes secrets. Instead, secrets should be provided during deployment, e.g. as environment variables. If you are using some cloud provider, they probably have special tooling to manage keys and other secrets. If you need to store secrets during development, ...


3

It is not uncommon in Open Source to have contributors agree to a contribution agreement which clarifies the copyright situation. You can formulate it either in a way that the contributors keep their copyright, which means that a license change is practically impossible without the permission of every single contributor. Or you can formulate it in a way ...


3

The AGPL license is a variant of the GPL license with a broader view on distribution of the software. The main difference between GPL and AGPL is that the latter also considers accessing an application remotely as distributing it. The core precepts of the GPL (and AGPL) are If you distribute an application, you must also distribute the source code Even if ...


3

The only material difference between the GPL and the AGPL is that the AGPL extends the concept of distribution to include "providing the web interface of a program to an internet-facing customer." If you really want a workaround, the way you do it is by wrapping the AGPL library in an executable, and calling it from the command line. The FSF calls this "...


3

According to the FSF, you cannot: Please note that the GNU AGPL is not compatible with GPLv2. It is also technically not compatible with GPLv3 in a strict sense: you cannot take code released under the GNU AGPL and convey or modify it however you like under the terms of GPLv3, or vice versa. However, you are allowed to combine separate modules or ...


3

Yes, but only if you license your product as AGPL as well. Just offering to provide source code to whoever asks is not enough. That does not prevent you from asking money for the product, but it means your customers have more rights than you maybe like. In particular, it would be perfectly fine for your first customer to put up your software for free on ...


3

Term 13 of the AGPLv3: 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, 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 ...


2

As the author (more strictly speaking, the copyright holder), you're entitled to license anything any way you want. Just declare in your license that the localSettings.php is licensed differently, and not subject to the Aferro GPL. Stuff like this is done all the time (e.g., the GNU Classpath exception) when then authors decide they want to allow ...


2

The resulting combined work would need to be AGPL. Here is a handy chart that explains many popular licensees. Arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow, possibly with some additional restrictions taken from the license at the start of the arrow.


2

My understanding is (I'm not a lawyer), if you don't modify it, you're free to use in public facing web app on private server. See for example, https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4691/java-and-agpl-3-how-far-does-license-extend-into-web-app


2

Well IANAL, but I think there is good reason why GPL allows internal use without distribution: in reality, it would be extremely hard to enforce a stronger kind of license on any company as long as they keep all their stuff internal. And if a company decides not to publish or distribute certain source code or code modifications, any employee taking actions ...


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