4 ms·

Listed as "Solves https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/2450 https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/2450 " which I guess is jus

Listed as "Solves https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/2450 https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/2450 " which I guess is just a "discussion" in that they want the contributors to assign copyright

candiddevmike 4y ago
The AGPL doesn't necessarily mean folks who create forks of Vaultwarden have to contribute back. They just have to make the source available to users of the service, it doesn't require them to PR their changes to the Vaultwarden repo or make the source available for non-customers (if the service isn't publicly accessible). This may seem like splitting hairs but it's an important distinction.
- mdaniel 4y ago
  Apologies if my comment came across as passing judgement, since I now have a policy of trying very hard to stay out of discussions about the merits of AGPL. I merely meant that the linked PR says it "solves" an issue, but when I went to the issue the "discussion" was only a "GitHub discussion" and not a discussion Although it is fascinating to see the discussion was opened "May 3, 2022" and this is the first I've heard of the relicense effort
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    Don't worry about it, my comment was about the GH discussion. They listed "providing back to the community" as one of the reasons for the switch. Sorry!
- raggi 4y ago
  If we're close to splitting hairs though, users includes everyone who ever hits any of its endpoints. It doesn't matter who has credentials - the license does not discuss "customers" and "non-customers". It says: The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version. If someone can reach the server, you agree to give them source for everything involved in that servers operation that is covered under "corresponding source". That includes linked, executed and networked programs that integrate with any custom patches to provide features: For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
  - candiddevmike 4y ago
    I do not believe this is correct. See my response to your other comment below. I think you're reading the corresponding source line too broadly.

candiddevmike 4y ago

The AGPL doesn't necessarily mean folks who create forks of Vaultwarden have to contribute back. They just have to make the source available to users of the service, it doesn't require them to PR their changes to the Vaultwarden repo or make the source available for non-customers (if the service isn't publicly accessible). This may seem like splitting hairs but it's an important distinction.

mdaniel 4y ago
Apologies if my comment came across as passing judgement, since I now have a policy of trying very hard to stay out of discussions about the merits of AGPL. I merely meant that the linked PR says it "solves" an issue, but when I went to the issue the "discussion" was only a "GitHub discussion" and not a discussion Although it is fascinating to see the discussion was opened "May 3, 2022" and this is the first I've heard of the relicense effort
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Don't worry about it, my comment was about the GH discussion. They listed "providing back to the community" as one of the reasons for the switch. Sorry!
raggi 4y ago
If we're close to splitting hairs though, users includes everyone who ever hits any of its endpoints. It doesn't matter who has credentials - the license does not discuss "customers" and "non-customers". It says: The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available to the community. It requires the operator of a network server to provide the source code of the modified version running there to the users of that server. Therefore, public use of a modified version, on a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source code of the modified version. If someone can reach the server, you agree to give them source for everything involved in that servers operation that is covered under "corresponding source". That includes linked, executed and networked programs that integrate with any custom patches to provide features: For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  I do not believe this is correct. See my response to your other comment below. I think you're reading the corresponding source line too broadly.