8 ms·
> If you’re using AGPL-licensed software like a database engine or my own AGPL-licensed works, and you haven’t made any changes to the source code, all you have
by throwaway290 3y ago
> If you’re using AGPL-licensed software like a database engine or my own AGPL-licensed works, and you haven’t made any changes to the source code, all you have to do is provide a link to the upstream source code somewhere, and if users ask for it, direct them there. If you have modified the software, you simply have to publish your modifications. The easiest way to do this is to send it as a patch upstream, but you could use something as simple as providing a tarball to your users.
(AGPL is generally stricter than LGPL)
https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html
- remram 3y agoGP was saying that statically linking would have been a violation. That is what GGP was trying to do, they fell back on running an executable because they didn't manage it. They're asking how to do it, but that wouldn't be legal (unless you offer a way for people to re-static-link with a modified version of ffmpeg, which is not easy if you don't want to publish your sources). Even distributing the standalone ffmpeg executable might be a violation, if there have been changes to the ffmpeg code and it's closed source.
- throwaway290 3y agoIf there have been changes to ffmpeg code, then all that's needed is making it possible for the user to obtain the changed ffmpeg code. Voila. There's way too much FUD.
- remram 3y agoI said "might" and "if"... where's the F, U, or D? If the source is published then that avenue is fine.
- throwaway290 3y agoYeah, I was wrong and per part 1 of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynami... this ios developer actually needs to provide the source for that app if they statically link. Otherwise it is an LGPL violation