5 ms·

Exactly. This is the ZFS-on-Linux situation. I prefer to keep all my code as much as possible mit and I share them on Github. This is my mode of operation. Gr

• zxzax 5y ago
  >keep all my code Huh? Grafana isn't your code, it's someone else's code that you'd be using. Unless I misinterpreted, and you are a Grafana contributor. If you are, you could dual license your contributions under AGPL and MIT, if you wanted.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    Without knowing what they work on, one obvious case is code that interacts with grafana; extensions, plugins, whatever. For that matter, it's perfectly possible to maintain your own personal patchsets without being a "contributor" per se. Niche, but plausible.
    • justincormack 5y ago
      Plugins don't seem to have been relicensed looking at https://github.com/grafana/grafana/blob/HEAD/LICENSING.md https://github.com/grafana/grafana/blob/HEAD/LICENSING.md
      • merb 5y ago
        I'm not sure if that is correct in the agpl sense...
• iFire 5y ago
  The AGPL3 license means that all my MIT code I distribute in a package will be considered AGPL3. So I can't combine Grafana, and my original work and improve both. This is a stated purpose of GPL3 / AGPL3. I am happy to be told I am wrong and it is possible.
  • aloisdg 5y ago
    Yes you can. The purpose of (A)GPLv3 is that someone else cannot benefit from you work if you cant benefit from theirs. It is a matter of leveraging cooperation.
  • blendergeek 5y ago
    It depends on what you mean by "combine". If you are releasing a Linux distro that has as one piece of software Grafana, you'll be fine. If your software is in effect an extension of Grafana, you will need to release source code under AGPLv3. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
    • iFire 5y ago
      Exactly. This is my understanding. Edited: Or pick a fork and live on it forever. Edited: Or write my own Grafana
      • devmor 5y ago
        This conflicts with everything you've said so far on this topic. I don't think you do understand.
  • devmor 5y ago
    If you are not offering a product built on top of Grafana as a network-available service, then there is no difference between the new license and the previous GPL3 license for you whatsoever. If you are, then your obligation would change to specifically making only that work which builds on top of the Grafana code available to others for free, along with the AGPL3-licensed Grafana code. You are not required to license that code that you wrote in any way, with the caveat that others may freely use it.
    • Macha 5y ago
      The previous license was Apache 2.0, not GPLv3
• josephcsible 5y ago
  What is your code? A fork of Grafana? Plugins for it? Or something else?
• josephcsible 5y ago
  I think you misunderstand the ZFS-on-Linux situation. The problem with that is that ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and Linux is licensed under the GPL, both of which are FOSS licenses, but there's no legal way to combine them. In your situation, it sounds like there is a legal way to combine them, and you just don't like the license that it would require you to release your code under.