Changes the license from GPLv3 to AGPLv3 #6689
Conversation
|
👍 |
1 similar comment
|
👍 |
|
https://github.com/Baystation12/Baystation12/blob/master/LICENSE-GPL3.txt#L552 Here for the provisions under which this is done edit: to be clear, all current existing code is GPL v3, all new code is AGPL and due to those sections the source distribution rules will apply to the entire codebase. |
|
👍 |
|
1️⃣ |
|
this is amazing |
|
👍 |
|
I feel this should be in the change log or something else to really let people know. I mean maybe put something like |
|
^ What @JJRcop said. Also 👍 |
|
👍 Merge posthaste so those closed-source assholes can't keep running off with
|
|
I assume everybody will, but doesn't all past contributors (who agreed to contribute under license X) need to approve of this change before it can become valid? |
|
Until all code before this merge is removed we still have GPLv3 existing in this codebase |
|
If you read the GPL clause above, GPLv3 code can be freely mixed with AGPLv3 code, and the result will be AGPLv3. In other words, you can still keep the code from before this closed by exploiting the loophole, but anything after this is protected by the AGPL clause 13. |
|
What about unmerged prs made before this was merged?
|
|
everything merged after this PR will have to be AGPL licensed if that is a problem for individual contributors they can retract their pull request and keep the code GPL licensed in their own repo. |
|
👎 |
|
Also, on the matter of code being ported from other branches (such as MC rewrite) this new licensing conflicts. |
|
AGPL can be freely mixed with GPLv3 code, which all other important branches use |
|
not really, unless they want to strip all the GPL code out when somebody requests the AGPL source |
|
I'm only responding to the licensing conflict argument only. Matters of source organization and managing the dual licensing of code is outside of my purview really. |
|
I think telling closed source, donation-run leeches to fuck off from our code is a good thing but then again I'm a /tg/ and open source elitist. It's not like we'd ever find out if a closed source codebase used our code anyway. |
|
@paprka I came from a small server on a codebase with non-public modifications. I came to tg to push back our bugfixes into TG because I got sick of merging them constantly. That's enough incentive for people to contribute. It's like a recipe for chilli being public, but you adding a secret ingredient that makes it special to you It just puts a squeeze on small servers. They don't want to have to care about legal stuff. And as I see it, there's really no point in this licensing change, we get nothing out of it at all. Because last time I checked, they've contributed a fuckload to TG. Collectively more than any single coder here. |
|
Well any codebase will likely have collectively contributed more than any individual coder here. Collective improvements from coders direct to this codebase would well outweight any changes from any downstream I imagine. |
This changes the code's license from the GPLv3 to the AGPLv3.
Why?
The GPL is a great copyleft license, but there is something called the ASP loophole that ends up allowing people to keep their code changes closed-source. The AGPLv3 patches said loophole, meaning that all branches and forks of an AGPLv3 codebase are legally forced to share their source code with any person that can connect to their server.
What does this mean for me?
If you have a closed-source fork of /tg/station, you are not legally allowed to use any code submitted to /tg/station after the license change, unless you release the source code for your fork under the AGPLv3 license to any person who can connect to your server. If you are a contributor, you agree to license the code you contribute after this PR is merged under the AGPLv3, meaning that any changes to your code must also be licensed under the AGPLv3 unless you give explicit permission for it to be under another license. Otherwise, nothing changes for you.