https://cal.com logo
Join Slack
Powered by
:wave: Quick question regarding something in the r...
# developers
d
đź‘‹ Quick question regarding something in the repo readme:
Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (to comply with AGPLv3. To clone in a private repository, acquire a commercial license)
I'm no legal expert, so just trying to understand this better. How does the AGPLv3 prevent me from cloning to a private repo? Does that prevent me cloning to my local machine since that would be a private repo?
p
d
@Peer Thanks for the reply. I have been attempting to understand the license. What would therefore count as a private repo as per the wording in the readme?
p
if you create a derivative product, whether its free or commerical, you need to keep the source open
so the community can potentially pull improvements that you made back into core
easiest way for you is just to fork it via github vs clone
fork and then clone your public repo to your local machine
agpl is mostly for fighting off big tech, less relevant for the hobby devs
d
@Peer Sure, but only if I'm distributing correct? The AGPLv3 would not stop me having a private repo of any kind or hosting a private instance (modified or not) as far as I can tell.
p
correct
d
@Peer Cool, thanks for confirming. So could that line in the readme currently be considered as mis-representing the AGPLv3? I don't mean to be antagonistic at all. My path stems from seeing another project, that looked up to the cal project's licensing terms and wording as a template, that had (by my own best judgment) an askew understanding of that the AGPLv3 meant for their project and therefore the limitations and freedoms provided for their code.
p
why would it misrepresent? agpl is a common OSS license and that's how it's applied
how would you change the wording?
to clarify: if you download the source code on your machine thats fine, as any code on github but the agpl license has restrictions around running a service, distribution and derivative works to strengthen and value the work by the contributors
d
@Peer Sure. I agree with that, but it does not restrict (again, as far as I can tell) cloning in a private repository as that line in the readme specifically states. Personally, I'd advise removing the line since the readme already clarifies the license terms.
p
i wouldnt define a private folder on your machine as a repository
d
What would be considered a "private repository"?
p
when uploading/distributing on github/gitlab etc or when running on your own server as a commercial product
d
The AGPLv3 would still allow me to upload code to a private repo though, I don't see why there would be a distinction between a local private repo and a GitHub hosted repo. The AGPLv3 would also still allow me to distribute the project (AGPLv3 portions at least) via GitHub or private means, as long as I adhere to the licence requirements (Provide source to those it's distributed to)
p
message has been deleted
d
@Peer Yeah, All of that aligns with my statement above. None of those would prevent me private storing or distributing the code, as long as I adhere to the license terms.
p
message has been deleted
d
@Peer Sure, The license has to stay the same, But that does not prevent me private storing or distributing the code, as long as I adhere to the license terms.
p
this paragraph specifically explains you cannot distribute in private
all existing and future work (derivatives) of this project need to stay open source until the end of web
for any further consultation, reach out to an IP lawyer i cant do more than reference the official license and its “tldr summary”
d
I agree that you cannot sub/re-license, but I can't see anything that would prevent me private storing or distributing the code, as long as I adhere to the license terms. That paragraph appears to be an article's interpretation of part of the license. It would (IMO) hold true in the context of talking about those you distribute to.
p
how do you define distribution?
to start from the beginning: what are you planning to do in the first place? that way i can check if it violates a license or if you need a commercial license as an alternative
d
For the AGPLv3, I'd define distribution as (very generally speaking) providing the codebase (In any form) or providing access to use the application to others (Hosting an instance and providing access). It would then be those users, whom I have distributed to, whom I'd need to provide the source for only (Of course they could then re-distribute themselves under the same license). I have no current plans for the app, just wanted to understand the logic of how AGPLv3 would limit private usage, after seeing someone else have the same understanding based upon this readme.
p
hey @Dan Brown to follow up on this: https://danb.me/blog/posts/misrepresenting-open-source/ there is nothing wrong to clone to your machine but once you start a commercial offering (which means distributing to customers) you need to stay open source you can run a non-enterprise, open source commercial product, as long as it stays open source
agpl has no harm to the community, in fact, having a stronger license protects the interests of the community against big tech giants who take a liberal license and sell it in private, see: Amazons Elastic Search competitor
and to summarize, neither you nor me are IP lawyers, this is our interpretation of the license and were happy to discuss, revise or negotiate with anyone who has questions about the license
i've also send over that snippet to an IP lawyer who is specialised on open source will get back to you what they say
tldr: if you distribute to anyone (run it as cal-competitor.com/dan) you need to stay public/open source your code
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by