Server licensing
Closed this issue · 8 comments
Maybe the server should have its own repo and use the GNU AGPL v3?
Putting the server in a seperate project means some additional effort which isn't worth it at this point. But it's definitely something we should do as the project gets more stable and mature.
About the license, it's a good thought and I don't have problems with any FOSS license. However, we need a lot more discussion with users which license should be preferred (because there are a lot of licenses, with many small differences). Also, isn't LGPL preferred for libraries?
Awesome.
On 27 June 2016 9:57:48 PM SAST, Felix Ableitner notifications@github.com wrote:
Putting the server in a seperate project means some additional effort
which isn't worth it at this point. But it's definitely something we
should do as the project gets more stable and mature.About the license, it's a good thought and I don't have problems with
any FOSS license. However, we need a lot more discussion which license
should be preferred (because there are a lot, and many small
differences). Also, isn't LGPL preferred for libraries?
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#47 (comment)
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Libraries should be LGPL. As then if some one creates something using your libraries they must open source their app that uses your libraries. If that is correct?
On 27 June 2016 9:57:48 PM SAST, Felix Ableitner notifications@github.com wrote:
Putting the server in a seperate project means some additional effort
which isn't worth it at this point. But it's definitely something we
should do as the project gets more stable and mature.About the license, it's a good thought and I don't have problems with
any FOSS license. However, we need a lot more discussion which license
should be preferred (because there are a lot, and many small
differences). Also, isn't LGPL preferred for libraries?
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#47 (comment)
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
The other way round. If a library is GPL, any program using it would have to be under GLP as well. If the library is under LGPL, programs linking to it can be closed source. AGPL seems to be very similar to GPL from what I saw.
OH. I see. That's nice.
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Felix Ableitner notifications@github.com wrote:
The other way round. If a library is GPL, any program using it would have to be under GLP as well. If the library is under LGPL, programs linking to it can be closed source. AGPL seems to be very similar to GPL from what I saw.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
AGPL means. If I provide a service to others over a network (the Internet) using a software (sever) and I make changes to that server software then I must open source those changes.
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Felix Ableitner notifications@github.com wrote:
The other way round. If a library is GPL, any program using it would have to be under GLP as well. If the library is under LGPL, programs linking to it can be closed source. AGPL seems to be very similar to GPL from what I saw.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
Ok :)