4 ms·
Does the AGPL mean that you would also have to license any software that communicates with this daemon under the AGPL? Or just the daemon itself?
by resoluteteeth 6y ago
Does the AGPL mean that you would also have to license any software that communicates with this daemon under the AGPL? Or just the daemon itself?
- remram 6y agoAGPL considers network use to be distribution, so if you have modified the AGPL-licensed software you have to make the source code available to users of that software. That does not mean you have to make the source of downstream systems available. In fact I am not sure you have to make the source of your modified AGPL software available to end users if you are using it internally ("users of that server" from the license would be you), but IANAL.
- pydry 6y agoThis is correct. It would only be polite to contribute back if you did find a bug fix anyway. AGPL seems the most appropriate license for software like this.
- andris9 6y agoFor most organisations running AGPL licensed daemon application like IMAP API and interacting with it via HTTP does not mean that the license extends to their own code as well. For those that are not 100% sure or do not want to touch AGPL at all, there's an option to buy MIT licensed version from my paid module store: https://postalsys.com/packages https://postalsys.com/packages
- kevincox 6y agoIANAL It isn't clear exactly what is required here. I think the intention is that this is fine, but then what if you were just to modify it and stick a TCP proxy in front? Does that mean that you don't need to distribute your modifications? The is ambiguous enough that Google with their army of lawyers forbids any use of AGPL software https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/docs/using/agpl-policy/