5 ms·
The repo doesn't mention a licence but the actual JS for the proof of work system mentions AGPL3, which is going to make this unsuitable for a lot of people.
by stephenr 8mo ago
The repo doesn't mention a licence but the actual JS for the proof of work system mentions AGPL3, which is going to make this unsuitable for a lot of people.
- mzajc 8mo agoThe copyright information is in debian/copyright, I forgot to also add a LICENSE.txt to the repo root. Indeed, all source files are covered by AGPLv3. Is this an issue for adoption? It only covers the challenge itself, not the services it's deployed on, and no extra work is needed if the source isn't modified.
- stephenr 8mo agoI'm not a lawyer, or a licence/copyleft expert. Plenty of people who know lots more than I do about those subjects specifically recommend any reliance on AGPL projects/tools/libraries/what have you, because of the viral nature of *GPL licences that don't have the linking exception of lgpl. Google's lawyers have a pretty clear-cut take on it: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy/ https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...