3 ms·

The EloqKV developers could choose to pick just the AGPL one in the future and drop GPLv2 support while taking contributors dual licensed contributions with the

by gpm 1y ago

The EloqKV developers could choose to pick just the AGPL one in the future and drop GPLv2 support while taking contributors dual licensed contributions with them... I don't know that's the plan, but it's the best reason I see to dual license like this.

wahnfrieden 1y ago
How do they properly accept contributions under dual licensing in a way that allows them to re-license those contributions? Through CLA? I'm not certain what you're saying is true - dropping one license might be as challenging as changing the license. Maybe I misunderstand
- gpm 1y ago
  The same way you accept any contribution, because it isn't technically relicensing. You already granted them an AGPLv3 license when you uploaded your change to github without modifying the license file - that's what the "or" in the file means [1] - which entitles them (and anyone else) to create and distribute derivative works under only the AGPLv3 without any GPLv2 grant... [1] Quoting the license file: This software is provided under a dual license. You may choose to use it under the terms of either: 1. GNU General Public License, Version 2 (GPLv2), or 2. GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPLv3).
  - sneak 1y ago
    As a contributor, couldn’t I use it under the terms of the GPL and make GPL-licensed derivative works and ignore their AGPL nonsense? If it is GPL then I understand that I am under no obligation to license my contributions under AGPL. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
    - gpm 1y ago
      Yes, of course. Dropping GPL2 support (or you dropping AGPLv3 support in your fork) only affects the future changes made after dropping support... you can't revoke the GPL licenses on the existing commits. Presumably they aren't going to merge any changes that drop the AGPL license... Also not a lawyer.
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      You could license your contributions (if substantial enough to warrant copyright) with any license, for instance BSD 2 clause. (If your license is not compatible with the GPLs they should not accept your contribution.)
    - iamlintaoz 1y ago
      That’s right. You can simply choose GPL and ignore the AGPL part for EloqKV. The reason we use both is that, in other projects, we need to support both GPL and AGPL. EloqKV and all its dependencies are either developed by us or licensed under more permissive terms, so you can choose either license. However, EloqDoc is under AGPL (https://github.com/eloqdata/eloqdoc https://github.com/eloqdata/eloqdoc) and we cannot relicense it under GPL because it includes some AGPL-licensed code from MongoDB.
      - sitkack 1y ago
        Would you accept AGPL licensed pull requests? EloqKV deployed on cloud is the same version hosted on github (the AGPL requires that users of EloqKV in your cloud service be available. If you are taking AGPL licensed pull requests you can incorporate source from Aerospike and ScyllaDB (pre-relicense).

by gpm 1y ago

wahnfrieden 1y ago

How do they properly accept contributions under dual licensing in a way that allows them to re-license those contributions? Through CLA? I'm not certain what you're saying is true - dropping one license might be as challenging as changing the license. Maybe I misunderstand

gpm 1y ago
The same way you accept any contribution, because it isn't technically relicensing. You already granted them an AGPLv3 license when you uploaded your change to github without modifying the license file - that's what the "or" in the file means [1] - which entitles them (and anyone else) to create and distribute derivative works under only the AGPLv3 without any GPLv2 grant... [1] Quoting the license file: This software is provided under a dual license. You may choose to use it under the terms of either: 1. GNU General Public License, Version 2 (GPLv2), or 2. GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPLv3).
- sneak 1y ago
  As a contributor, couldn’t I use it under the terms of the GPL and make GPL-licensed derivative works and ignore their AGPL nonsense? If it is GPL then I understand that I am under no obligation to license my contributions under AGPL. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.
  - gpm 1y ago
    Yes, of course. Dropping GPL2 support (or you dropping AGPLv3 support in your fork) only affects the future changes made after dropping support... you can't revoke the GPL licenses on the existing commits. Presumably they aren't going to merge any changes that drop the AGPL license... Also not a lawyer.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    You could license your contributions (if substantial enough to warrant copyright) with any license, for instance BSD 2 clause. (If your license is not compatible with the GPLs they should not accept your contribution.)
  - iamlintaoz 1y ago
    That’s right. You can simply choose GPL and ignore the AGPL part for EloqKV. The reason we use both is that, in other projects, we need to support both GPL and AGPL. EloqKV and all its dependencies are either developed by us or licensed under more permissive terms, so you can choose either license. However, EloqDoc is under AGPL (https://github.com/eloqdata/eloqdoc https://github.com/eloqdata/eloqdoc) and we cannot relicense it under GPL because it includes some AGPL-licensed code from MongoDB.
    - sitkack 1y ago
      Would you accept AGPL licensed pull requests? EloqKV deployed on cloud is the same version hosted on github (the AGPL requires that users of EloqKV in your cloud service be available. If you are taking AGPL licensed pull requests you can incorporate source from Aerospike and ScyllaDB (pre-relicense).