What is the license?

[mattl]

You have GPLv3 in the repo.

You link to a GPLv3 button on the README.

You say it's LGPL-llke.

You have some Emacs-commune like requirements.

[boriel]

ZX Basic was originally GPLv3, but that was a problem because files created by the compiler might contain code from library-asm/ and library/ directories respectively.

Hence, to allow people to create closed source re-distributable binaries using that runtime code, these 2 folders and its related content are licensed MIT.

That of LGPL-like must be a reminiscence of versions prior 1.4.x and must be removed. Will change that.

[donaldr3]

You may want to take a look at how GNU Bison handled similar issues, see http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bison.git/tree/src/parse-gram.c and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanIUseGPLToolsForNF. You'll also want to take a look at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html for instructions on license notices.

[boriel]

Just for reference there is a further elaboration of the licensing situation in #695 . It's still confusing to me, but maybe it clear things up.

No. It's explained here:
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/13256/using-agpl-package-for-a-saas

Basically if you have the compiler code isolated (e.g. in a Docker container or in a separate directory -unmodified-), and your tool invokes it that's ok.

But if you modify the compiler source code to be used in a SaaS publicly by users those changes must be made public under the same license too.

[Jookia]

I deleted my comments, I don't need a response: I'm confused, and I was just trying to point to that issue for reference to aid anyone else confused about the supposed contradiction like I am.

[boriel]

I think we can close this issue:
As of v1.17.3 onwards, the compiler is licensed aGPL v3.
The library files (ie. those use to created compiled programs) are released under Apache / MIT / BSD / Public domain licenses (i.e. to allow people to create closed-source / commercial programs, like videogames).

[Jookia]

This clause is in conflict with the AGPL license: "If you modify this project (the compiler .py or anything licensed as AGPLv3) in any and use it as a part of a SaaS service, you MUST publish the changes you made and submit your contribution to the community under the same license." I've tried to explain this but I think I've come off as a troll 😅 Edit: To be clear, this is what @mattl was referring to with the "You have some Emacs-commune like requirements." Edit 2: Here's a good explanation of why the AGPL says you don't need to do these things: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/10077/must-i-share-made-modifications-of-a-software-which-has-a-agpl-3-0-license-and-i Edit 3: Here's the FSF explaining a bit more clearly: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

[boriel]

And I have already explained you that you always "can" modiffy the program.
The AGPL states that you only have to publish your changes whenever you distribute the program or use the program as a service (SaaS).
If you don´t want to do that, you can simply put the compiler in a separate directory (or within a docker container) and invoke it within your service and that's all.
I don´t see any problem, to be honest.

May I know what are you trying to do, concretely?

PS: The links provided for are for the GPL, not for the AGPL.

[Jookia]

The AGPL says you only have to publish your changes to the people who use your program, not the entire Internet or 'community'. There is no requirement for you to publish your code on say GitHub or send patches here. The AGPL says explicitly that additional requirements like these can be ignored.

The AGPL has the same wording here as the GPL, but it's hard to find anything about this because it's not in the license.

Regarding what I'm trying to do is get clarification: You say I MUST do something that the license says I can do. I like your software, and I want to use it, but I don't want to betray your wishes as an author- you clearly want something that the license forbids, and that's not great for anyone.

[boriel]

"With the people that interacts with your program". That is. :-)
I was about to say that the last paragraph of the StackOverflow link provided, indeed states:

In answer to the question in the title: you must share such modified software - and not just your modifications, but the complete corresponding source - with anyone to whom you distribute any portion of the software, and with anyone who interacts with your modified version over a computer network.

And this exactly what I've been trying to state from the beginning. And again, this is about the compiler (the Python code), not the programs created with it.

Anyway, we (yes, I have contacted back the contributors) are rearranging this for the upcoming version to put it clearer.