GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing
-
@dustinb3403 said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
@coliver do you think there would be any reason for these scripts to not have the strongest license?
This way anything that comes down the pipe is available to everyone from the get-go.
I am partial to the AGPL license just because it forces everything that uses it to maintain the same license and any modifications need to be shared back to the community, if it is released. (I don't do software dev just thinking from a enthusiasts point of view).
-
@scottalanmiller that was kind of my thinking that the contributions back to the primary would be best this way you have one system that just works for everybody and you don't have to worry about disparaging differences between 1 fork or another
-
@dustinb3403 said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
@scottalanmiller that was kind of my thinking that the contributions back to the primary would be best this way you have one system that just works for everybody and you don't have to worry about disparaging differences between 1 fork or another
As people don't host it, though, likely doesn't matter.
-
@scottalanmiller So you think AGPLv3 is fine?
-
Let's take a poll
-
Poll closed, GPL'd both.
Calling on @olivier to license https://github.com/vatesfr/xo
-
@dustinb3403 said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
@scottalanmiller So you think AGPLv3 is fine?
yeah, don't think that it would make any difference as there is no hosted version of the code, so what would it affect?
-
aGPLv3 if you think some "hosters" can use it without contributing (ie not actually run the code on your machine = no need to share your modification with GPLv2 for example).
Guess which license made AWS adding stuff to Xen without sharing it? So, even if I'm selling software, I'm convinced aGPLv3 is more fair toward the community. /my2cents
-
@olivier said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
aGPLv3 if you think some "hosters" can use it without contributing (ie not actually run the code on your machine = no need to share your modification with GPLv2 for example).
Guess which license made AWS adding stuff to Xen without sharing it? So, even if I'm selling software, I'm convinced aGPLv3 is more fair toward the community. /my2cents
Xen is MIT licensed isn't it? Nope GPL2. Duh should have trusted the dev.
-
@coliver said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
@olivier said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
aGPLv3 if you think some "hosters" can use it without contributing (ie not actually run the code on your machine = no need to share your modification with GPLv2 for example).
Guess which license made AWS adding stuff to Xen without sharing it? So, even if I'm selling software, I'm convinced aGPLv3 is more fair toward the community. /my2cents
Xen is MIT licensed isn't it?
GPLv2 from what I can see.
-
@coliver said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
@olivier said in GNU AGPLv3 vs MIT licensing:
aGPLv3 if you think some "hosters" can use it without contributing (ie not actually run the code on your machine = no need to share your modification with GPLv2 for example).
Guess which license made AWS adding stuff to Xen without sharing it? So, even if I'm selling software, I'm convinced aGPLv3 is more fair toward the community. /my2cents
Xen is MIT licensed isn't it? Nope GPL2. Duh should have trusted the dev.
Xen probably predates the MIT license!
-
@olivier Definitely worth repeating this old post. Oracle has given back so much more than Amazon.
