4 ms·
Yes, unless there is a specific exception, the program would be covered by AGPL. Even if you just use it on the server, you have to release your programs code u
by _ph_ 7y ago
Yes, unless there is a specific exception, the program would be covered by AGPL. Even if you just use it on the server, you have to release your programs code under the AGPL.
- e12e 7y agoThe compiled program. So you could give users the compiler (under AGPL) and source code to your program under a proprietary license. But you probably wouldn't, I guess. Any compiled artifacts would need to be distributed (if they are distributed) under AGPL. I'm a fan of Free software, but much prefer GPL/LGPL for compilers and runtimes/standard libraries.
- mumblemumble 7y agoIt depends. . . if the compiled program is 100% compiler output, then it's fine. If the compiled program ends up including bits of library code that ships with the compiler, then, in the absence of special exceptions, the output will also need to be AGPL-licensed. That's exactly why, for example, LLVM ships with a modified version of the Apache license: http://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/LICENSE.txt http://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/LICENSE.txt (see the bottom)
- e12e 7y agoI'm having trouble seeing how this won't incorporate a substantial runtime in all builds? It's a full scheme system...
- OskarS 7y agoWow, really? So it’s essentially impossible to use this for proprietary software? I knew about the server stuff, but I didn’t think the AGPL bound compiled programs to the terms of the compiler. If I use an AGPL text editor, does my written text also become APGL?
- e12e 7y agoImpossible to use for proprietary software you distribute. So you can write internal software, and only need to share the source with yourself.
- mumblemumble 7y agoProbably more poignantly, it's not usable for open source projects that want to distribute their stuff under a license that's more permissive than the AGPL. Which I'm guessing is intentional.
- e12e 7y agoWell, it only prevents distributing binaries. You could still do source only distribution.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- _ph_ 7y agoAn (A)GPL text editor works, see for example Emacs, as the text created doesn't contain any part of the editor itself. But a compilers emits code which is based on your source and the compiler itself. Also, it usually links against a standard library which would be AGPL. So this makes your created executable AGPL unless there is an explicit excemption, as it is the case with GCC.
- e12e 7y agoActually seems the author might be a bit confused about link exceptions: "Linux’s license doesn’t extend to user space and I want that aspect to work the same for Loko." Sounds like they really want something closer to gcc/glibc licensing. Not quite sure if they really want to close the "proprietary fork running as compiler-as-a-service in the cloud"-hole that using the AGPL (with link exception) would close, though.
- ilammy 7y agoLinux kernel has some uapi headers which are usually (transitively) incorporated into your programs by the libc you use. The exception covers this code.
- e12e 7y agoRight, the author might not be aware of: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/process/license-rules.rst https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/... "The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file." In other words, the Linux kernel isn't pure gplv2, but comes with an exception in order to allow linking.