Asklemmy
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
and how hard is it to convert agpl code to gpl?
Generally speaking, you can't. You can license the whole thing AGPL which is fine; if for some crazy reason you don't want to do that you pretty much have to rewrite anything AGPL in order to license the whole thing GPL3. Why would you do that though?
This is incorrect. You can relicense your code to whatever you want if you and all the license holders agree to do so. You canβt unlicense the old code, though, and if there are more license holders than just you, itβs probably more complicated than itβs worth.
have to rewrite anything AGPL
Iβm skeptical this would actually hold up in court because if you wrote the original code and then wrote the new code, it would not be clean room design and would most likely be breaking the terms of the original license.
That link was a fascinating read. TIL. Thanks!
That's accurate that if you wrote the code, you can license or relicense it however you want.
I thought the person was asking about combining together other people's code -- yes, if you wrote it you can do whatever you like.
i guess if you wabt kther gpl licensed projects to uze it? qould make sense if there was an agpl that was compatible with gpl (so all the protections of agpl but the extra ones can be dismissed ONLY for gpl projects)
Doesn't really work that way, I don't think... if you're specifically using agpl, then you don't want people relicensing it as gpl (in particular because that could include Microsoft selling access to a "gpl" version of the project behind an api endpoint or something, and never distributing their source modifications since the gpl doesn't require them to.) I think the gpl-compatible license you're looking for is the gpl.
What's the difference between gpl and agpl?
- GPL means you can have the software+source for free and make changes to it. But, if you sell or redistribute it (which you can also do), you have to give people the source code with any improvements you made to it also.
- AGPL is the same, but you also have to give people the source if they're accessing it behind a web service or something (i.e. making use of it without technically "receiving" the underlying software).
So aGPL is basically just better gpl.
Why do people mainly use GPL then? Just don't know it exists?
Yeah, no particular reason. Either it was already licensed GPL3 with multiple authors and not enough reason to "upgrade" to justify the difficulty that entails of consulting with everyone, or it's a type of software where there's basically no difference, or they're just not aware of it.
Thanks.