#121 closed task (released)
Move all code to AGPL
Reported by: | ibboard | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | WarFoundry 0.1 |
Component: | General/Unknown | Version: | |
Keywords: | licensing agpl | Cc: | |
Blocked By: | Blocking: |
Description (last modified by )
As per my forum topic, WarFoundry should be moved to the AGPL. The original intention of the LGPL was to not force people to use the GPL for front-ends, but freedom of code is more important than simple license choices and so the move should be made to AGPL licensing.
Change History (14)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Keywords: | agpl added; gpl removed |
Summary: | Move all code to GPL → Move all code to AGPL |
The response from the FSF (who were prompt and useful) said:
In section 13 of the GPL, it states "the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such." That means that if you are making a work that includes both AGPL and GPLv3 software, then the AGPL's special requirement applies to the work as a whole. That means that you have a combined work up and running on a server, you must offer the code as a whole to users interacting with that combined work.
and
The AGPL's special requirement doesn't turn on whether the work is 'conveyed,' or whether network interaction is conveyance. Instead, the license just makes special provisions for the situation where users can interact with a modified version of the code over a network.
That means that an AGPLed library will still need to be redistributed if changes are made to it and it is used behind a web-service front-end. While it does force the service developer to use a GPL or AGPL license on their front-end and redistribute their source, I think that's a minor problem as it doesn't stop commercial derivatives, it just means that they have to be free.
Also, since the AGPL is effectively the GPL with a modification to its definition of "conveyance" so that networked services can't modify GPLed code without redistributing those changes, the compatibility matrix shows that the main IBBoard Utils can stay as LGPLed.
comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by
comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
All libraries and front-ends now updated to the AGPL. Any use of the libraries as the back-end for a web service should now also trigger the "distribute your changes" aspect of open source licensing.
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by
released: | 1 → yes |
---|
Mark released fixes as released using radio values
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by
Resolution: | fixed → released |
---|
Mark fix as released under a previous version
Although the ticket mentions the GPL, as per the topic we may use the AGPL (GNU Affero GPL) since mod_mono and ASP.Net allow people to use the API as a back-end for web-based apps. The AGPL is basically just the GPL with an additional condition that making something publicly available as a networked service is the same as "conveying" (redistributing) source/binary builds.
This choice of GPL vs AGPL depends on the response to my email to the Free Software Foundation: