4 ms·

[deleted]

headhasthoughts 3y ago
You, too, are wrong. From Canonical's actual announcement: > Canonical has decided to change the default contributions to the LXD project to AGPLv3 to align with our standard license for server-side code. All Canonical contributions have been relicensed and are now under AGPLv3. Community contributions remain under Apache 2.0.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  Thanks for the correction. Seems like the headline was incorrect in a different way.
- tecleandor 3y ago
  You're both kinda correct. What Stephane was complaining about is the whole Snap package for lxd has been marked as AGPL, and that's not correct. Check in the store, down, in the license info section: https://snapcraft.io/lxd https://snapcraft.io/lxd Edit: also, from what I see in the commit, it doesn't make much distinction between what's AGPL and what not. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12663/commits/b8ff449ddb44dee98105b292d531584e34d3a889 https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12663/commits/b8ff449d...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - headhasthoughts 3y ago
    It is correct; the binary is AGPL, and Snap is a binary distribution method.
    - NewJazz 3y ago
      Nope, the binary is under both licenses. Just because they are compatible doesn't mean you can ignore the terms of one of them.
      - notpushkin 3y ago
        I sometimes “editorialize” license names for Lunni Marketplace, too. [1] I think it’s fine: the binary is under both licenses, but one requires you to publish a notice and the other requires you to publish a notice and all source code for both parts. Since you want to know what “license burden” you’ll have to bear when you’re looking for an app in a distribution platform like this, I think it’s fair to just specify the more restrictive license. (IANAL) [1]: https://lunni.dev/docs/marketplace/ https://lunni.dev/docs/marketplace/
dang 3y ago
The submitted title was "Canonical re-licenses LXD under AGPLv3, slaps a CLA on top". I've changed it to the article's title, in keeping with HN's rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If the current title isn't accurate, and anyone can suggest a more accurate and neutral one, we can change it again.
ZiiS 3y ago
Lxd as a whole is certaily now only available under the AGPLv3 license. Some parts are also available under the Apache 2.0 license. And Canonical are bound by that agreement to tell you such; but it is still factual to say you have to agree to the AGPLv3 to distribute it.

[deleted]

You, too, are wrong. From Canonical's actual announcement: > Canonical has decided to change the default contributions to the LXD project to AGPLv3 to align with our standard license for server-side code. All Canonical contributions have been relicensed and are now under AGPLv3. Community contributions remain under Apache 2.0.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
Thanks for the correction. Seems like the headline was incorrect in a different way.
tecleandor 3y ago
You're both kinda correct. What Stephane was complaining about is the whole Snap package for lxd has been marked as AGPL, and that's not correct. Check in the store, down, in the license info section: https://snapcraft.io/lxd https://snapcraft.io/lxd Edit: also, from what I see in the commit, it doesn't make much distinction between what's AGPL and what not. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12663/commits/b8ff449ddb44dee98105b292d531584e34d3a889 https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12663/commits/b8ff449d...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- headhasthoughts 3y ago
  It is correct; the binary is AGPL, and Snap is a binary distribution method.
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    Nope, the binary is under both licenses. Just because they are compatible doesn't mean you can ignore the terms of one of them.
    - notpushkin 3y ago
      I sometimes “editorialize” license names for Lunni Marketplace, too. [1] I think it’s fine: the binary is under both licenses, but one requires you to publish a notice and the other requires you to publish a notice and all source code for both parts. Since you want to know what “license burden” you’ll have to bear when you’re looking for an app in a distribution platform like this, I think it’s fair to just specify the more restrictive license. (IANAL) [1]: https://lunni.dev/docs/marketplace/ https://lunni.dev/docs/marketplace/

dang 3y ago

The submitted title was "Canonical re-licenses LXD under AGPLv3, slaps a CLA on top". I've changed it to the article's title, in keeping with HN's rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If the current title isn't accurate, and anyone can suggest a more accurate and neutral one, we can change it again.

ZiiS 3y ago

Lxd as a whole is certaily now only available under the AGPLv3 license. Some parts are also available under the Apache 2.0 license. And Canonical are bound by that agreement to tell you such; but it is still factual to say you have to agree to the AGPLv3 to distribute it.