Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Consider releasing under the AGPL instead of GPL #2607

Closed
nxxxse opened this issue Sep 15, 2019 · 7 comments
Closed

Consider releasing under the AGPL instead of GPL #2607

nxxxse opened this issue Sep 15, 2019 · 7 comments
Labels
stale No replies or comments. Will be auto-closed in 14 days.

Comments

@nxxxse
Copy link

nxxxse commented Sep 15, 2019

Description

Currently the GPL is used which has the application service provider loophole.

Solution

Have you considered the AGPL?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2127246/difference-between-affero-gpl-and-gplv3

@JC5
Copy link
Member

JC5 commented Sep 16, 2019

No, not really. I understand the loophole though.

@JC5 JC5 added the question label Sep 16, 2019
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Sep 23, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale No replies or comments. Will be auto-closed in 14 days. label Sep 23, 2019
@stale stale bot closed this as completed Sep 30, 2019
@nxxxse
Copy link
Author

nxxxse commented Sep 30, 2019

@JC5 Could you maybe leave this issue open and consider it in a relaxed minute? I think this small detail is important for Firefly III to ensure users freedoms and to avoid that the next random company grabs the code base, and makes a closed business out of it. With the GPL, they could do this no issue.

@nxxxse nxxxse changed the title Consider releasing under to AGPL instead of GPL Consider releasing under the AGPL instead of GPL Sep 30, 2019
@JC5
Copy link
Member

JC5 commented Oct 1, 2019

The fact that the issue is closed doesn't mean I stopped thinking about it :)

JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2019
…nse as suggested by @nxxxse in #2607. This applies to all code in this commit from this moment onwards.
@JC5
Copy link
Member

JC5 commented Oct 2, 2019

I'm not sure if GitHub alerts you but please check out the commits above my reply on GitHub :)

@nxxxse
Copy link
Author

nxxxse commented Oct 3, 2019

Hey @JC5

Thanks very much for considering and already changing 😃 I am not a lawyer and I was not sure about license compatibility and the need to ask contributors for their approval to this license change but with GPL-3.0-or-later to AGPL-3.0-or-later this seems not to be the case. The licenses are very similar
(https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AllCompatibility) and my understanding is that you can just start releasing under the AGPL-3.0-or-later from now on. Old releases remain GPL-3.0-or-later obviously. But the longer you improve the AGPL project now, the more unfeasible it will get to take the old GPL code and start a closed business out of it.

A note on the copyright note. You now use:

Copyright (c) 2019 thegrumpydictator@gmail.com

I think it is more common (also suggested here in https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html, section The copyright notice), that you list the years or give a range of releases. Considering your releases (I looked at git tags), this would be appropriate:

Copyright (c) 2014-2019 thegrumpydictator@gmail.com

It also matches the majority of Firefly III more closely ;-)

Also, some more hints:

  • Update the license identifier also in composer.json
  • Include a note in the webinterface. Example from Nextcloud: "Developed by the Nextcloud community, the source code is licensed under the AGPL." This note is included in Nextcloud in the settings page.
    Maybe even be more precise than Nextcloud and use something like: "Developed by James Cole, the source code is licensed under the AGPL-3.0-or-later."

@JC5
Copy link
Member

JC5 commented Oct 3, 2019

Thanks for the suggestions, I’ll pick it up!

JC5 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2019
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 18, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
stale No replies or comments. Will be auto-closed in 14 days.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants