• jackpot@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    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)

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago
          • 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).
            • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.