Hot answers tagged

40

The AGPL is based on the GPL, not the LGPL. It does not contain any linking exceptions, and any work using AGPL code (linked or otherwise, modified or not) must also be AGPL licensed and distributed. Using separate processes can circumvent the (A)GPL, but this is murky ground. If your end application depends on the external process, such that it wouldn't ...


20

If you confine use of the library to within the walls of your corporation, you do not have to distribute the source (even to your employees), because you are not redistributing (selling or giving away a software product that includes the library) outside of your organization. The GPL allows you to freely use the code inside a corporation without ...


19

roughly, as long as you application isn't just a wrapper around the library: LGPL: you can link against and don't have to release source code as long as you don't modify the library itself GPL: you have to release source code if you link against and distribute the binary, but don't if you just provide a service AGPL: you have to allow the source to be ...


14

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

AGPL is the same as GPL; therefore if your app is using AGPL code it has to be AGPL licensed. What AGPL does on top of GPL is the redefinition of user. For GPL programs running on your server, you are the user, for AGPL, the real users of the app are the users of your website or service. Therefore you are distributing the app if someone other than you is ...


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 ...


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 ...


7

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 ...


6

AGPL and GPLv3 were created to close the "GPL as a service" loop hole. If the code is licensed this way and you are going to use the web server in a commercial setting I would look elsewhere. I am not a lawyer, etc. Affero General Public License That is the purpose of the AGPL, am I correct? AGPL is the opposite of what you are assuming here. Does ...


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....


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 ...


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

You have to offer to supply the source and any modifications - to anyone you distribute the binary to. Since you only distribute it to users inside your company that shouldn't be too much of a problem ! note: the AGPL is basically the GPL with the addition that you consider web users of a service based on the code to have had the software distributed to ...


5

It’s pointless to write your own license. 99.999% of people will ignore it anyway. 0.0001% will read it and reject it because they don’t understand it, or could never get Legal to agree to it. Any license without the firepower of somebody like $MegaCorp$ or the FSF behind it is doomed anyway. How many lawyers can you afford to defend against it in London/...


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

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 ...


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 long programs' arms ...


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

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.


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

Disclaimer: IANAL You can use AGPL programs for anything, including commercial programs. If you make changes to the programs, however, you have to release these changes. As the driver can be considered "part of your work" under GPL terminology, you might have to release the source code when using an AGPL driver. This is the reason why the DRIVER is not ...


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

I'm not a lawyer, and this depends on which country you are in. Having said that, I understand that saying you use a particular license and attaching a notice to that effect within the source code is sufficient. Adding license text to every file is probably over-cautious. Remember: if there is no license, then someone isn't allowed to copy your code at all ...


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