- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- opensource@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
All Canonical contributions have been relicensed and are now under AGPLv3. Community contributions remain under Apache 2.0.
So they can happily port over code from the Incus fork but Incus cannot import the code without changing the license first. It’s meant to be a one-way street. Typical Canonical.
Look, I’m usually first in line to shit on Canonical, but I can’t get mad at them adopting AGPL. This is objectively the best license for server software. Incus should also switch to AGPL for all Canonical code, and seek to have contributors license their code as AGPL as well.
I will however point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of it, because the Snap server is still proprietary after all of this time. If this is their “standard for server-side code” then apply it to Snaps or quit lying to us.
Can you explain to a person who knows little about licenses, such as myself, what makes AGPL so good?
It requires that you make available the full source code to anyone who you give binaries too (like the GPL), but also requires you make available that source to users of the software over a network. So, someone could not make a proprietary fork of AGPL software to sell exclusively as a service. In order to provide that service you have to also be willing to provide the source, including changes, which would allow users to then choose to run that service themselves instead of being forced to pay the provider.
I see, thanks
The full details are complex but I’ll give you the basic gist. The original GPL licenses essentially say that if you give somebody the compiled binary, they are legally entitled to have the source code as well, along with the rights to modify and redistribute it so long as they too follow the same rules. It creates a system where code flows down freely like water.
However, this doesn’t apply if you don’t give them the binary. For example, taking an open source GPL-licensed project and running it on a server instead. The GPL doesn’t apply, so you can modify it and do whatever, and you aren’t required to share the source code if other people access it because that’s not specified in the GPL.
The AGPL was created to address this. It adds a stipulation that if you give people access to the software on a remote system, they are still entitled to the source code and all the same rights to modify and redistribute it. Code now flows freely again, and all is well.
The only “issue” is that the GPL/AGPL are only one-way compatible with the Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licenses. These licenses put minimal requirements on code sharing, so it’s completely fine to add their code to GPL projects. But themselves, they aren’t up to GPL requirements, so GPL code can’t be added to Apache projects.
deleted by creator
Obviously their own code can be sold at their discretion. It’s not about libre software.
They would have used a license like SSPL or the newer BSL for that. AGPL keeps it open. They got that going for them and about nothing else.
They would have used a license like SSPL or the newer BSL for that. AGPL keeps it open.
No, the copyright owner can sell proprietary versions however they like. Outside contributions are required to sign Canonical’s CLA. Read https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#license-and-copyright before making claims.
I don’t understand how AGPL allows Canonical to make and sell proprietary copies of this software without violating their license. That’s the only way your scenario could happen. If you’re aware of a situation where a company can do this, I’d love to learn.
I don’t understand how AGPL allows Canonical to make and sell proprietary copies of this software without violating their license. That’s the only way your scenario could happen.
The FSF made an FAQ page for a reason: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
“To release a nonfree program is always ethically tainted, but legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various different non-exclusive licenses at various times. […] the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a “violation” of the GPL.”
Canonical read the FAQ, many people here didn’t.
Wow! I learned something. To return the favor, life would be better for you if you were less rude in the way you convey information.
Apache is too permissive a license anyways. This is kind of the point of copyleft licenses — a feature, not a bug.
The CLA is still in place. Usual Canonical.
This incus? https://github.com/lxc/incus I don’t understand
Yes but I don’t know what you don’t understand. One-directional flow of FLOSS licenses?
Projects which choose BSD/Apache type licences do so fully in the knowledge that their code may be incorporated into projects with different licences. That’s literally the point: it’s considered a feature of the licence. These projects are explicitly OK with their code going proprietary, for example. If they weren’t OK with it, they’d use a GPL-type copyleft licence instead, as that’s conversely the literal point of those licences.
Being mad about your Apache code being incorporated into a GPL project would make no sense, and certainly wouldn’t garner any sympathy from most people in the FOSS community.
Yes and by not continuing that licensing but instead adopting AGPL+CLA Canonical create their usual one way street.
Its not a one way street but this makes more libre thing. Canonical didnt make it proprietary to create a one way street but made it more libre by adopting AGPL license which gives users more rights to the code
Its not a one way street but this makes more libre thing. Canonical didnt make it proprietary to create a one way street but made it more libre by adopting AGPL license which gives users more rights to the code
Why is there still a CLA that allows them and only them to sell proprietary versions then? Don’t fall for Canonical’s PR bullshit.
Read https://github.com/canonical/lxd/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#license-and-copyright
Could you expand on that? What is it that makes that possible?
In short incus has Apache 2.0 copyright licene that states:
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole
While AGPL v3.0 that Canonical just adopted states:
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
. . .
You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy …
Meaning if incus uses any part of Canonicals source their code can’t be licenced under Apache but rather AGPL v3.0, which pulls any other derivative of incus.
That’s very informative, thank you.
deleted by creator
Is this a based move? From Canonical? (°0°)
No, it comes together with a CLA being required to contribute. In other words, Canonical (and only Canonical) is still allowed to sell exceptions to the AGPL.
Yes, the post says there is no copyright assignment. That’s extremely carefully chosen wording to avoid mention of the CLA which was made required in the same commit as the license change. It’s “just” a super extended license that lets them do whatever, not assignment.
Quite the same case as with matrix. I very much prefer AGPL over all the other permissive licences, but I don’t know, the CLA leaves a bad taste in the mouth
Can somebody explain in a few words what’s CLA? Does it limit contributors rights?
You sign over your copyright on your contributions to the project.
Shit that’s awful, so they could theorically change the lisence to whatever they want at any time
I tried reading through it and I don’t understand completely if they reserve the right to relicense in a way that is against the interest of contributor.
They say that the contributor retains the copyright and can do whatever they want with the code they contributed, which is good, they also say that they can sublicense your contributions, which, as far as I know, means they couldn’t make it more permissive, but only more restrictive, at least that is the case with Creative Commons
No other company will contribute to LXD now. This is 100% a Canonical tool. Were the big clouds looking at deploying LXD so Canonical tried to block them?
I think the reason it’s a Canonical product is because nobody else was contributing to it before. So nothing has changed.
What
