I am building a product for which I plan to use a software that is licensed under the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3. I am not planning to extend the code and I just plan to use it, as a JAR. Should I also release my software as AGPL and open source my code base?
+4
A:
The GPL and AGPL require derived works to be released under the same terms, so if you use an AGPL library you will need to license your code under the AGPL or a compatible license.
If you use more than one library you should also take care that the license for each library is compatible with the license that you select for the derived work.
This link: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html and this link: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index%5Fhtml#GPLCompatibleLicenses have a lot of useful information.
richj
2009-12-25 15:16:16
you still able to make commercial code but you must release / provide the code if the client want it. i think that's how opensource work
nightingale2k1
2009-12-25 15:37:33
@nightingale2k1 - your spot on. To clarify the requirement of the AGPL3 is that you must either provide the source, or a promise that you will provide the source with each distribution. Say if you use (A)GPL3 code in your app, and you do convey/distribute your app with that code; then if your code is not GPL3 compatible you are in violation so you simply lose permission to use that (A)GPL3 licensed work your application. Alternatively you could chose to never convey/distribute your application - still fine. Or you can GPL your software as richj has indicated.
balupton
2010-07-25 20:09:28
+1
A:
Personally, I would avoid any AGPL licensed code like the plague - of all the FOSS licences it seems to me to be the most objectionable. However, there is nothing in it that prevents its use in commercial code.
anon
2009-12-25 15:21:00
It clearly states that its only for non Commercial use. That's the reason I am worried, and probably why I wont use it.
Ritesh M Nayak
2009-12-29 10:58:03
It doesn't say that at all. It only restricts the means of conveying the source if you're engaging in commercial use.
daf
2009-12-30 18:16:32
+1
A:
As a JAR, it probably counts as being dynamically linked to whatever else you're using, so you'd probably have to release everything under the AGPL. (Not that I like the AGPL.) It looks to me like the following is the crucial part:
To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.
If what you're doing requires copyright permission, then you should be able to get by with the part on distributing an unmodified copy. If it does (and I am not going to tell you what does or doesn't; consult a lawyer with copyright experience for that), then you are going to have to distrbute the whole thing under the AGPL.
Don't count on anything you read here. This is a fuzzy issue, and this is not a legal site.
David Thornley
2009-12-25 15:33:24
A:
you still can use in commercial purposes but when your client asking the code, you must release it as well since it is using opensource product. opensource protect the original codes but not prevent you making money using that product :)
nightingale2k1
2009-12-25 15:39:08
Not just the clients, but everyone including competitors, best friends, worst enemies. :-)
tony-p-lee
2009-12-25 15:52:13
For the GPL you only need to provide the source code to people to whom you distributed the object code, not to the general public (the GPL does _allow_ them to give away the source to anyone).For the AGPL you must also provide the source to "all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network". i.e. users of your web site.
Craig
2009-12-29 20:26:19
+1
A:
Nothing prevents free software from being sold or used in a commercial way. In fact, selling free software is OK!
The usage of "commercial" for "nonfree" is misguiding. Commercial free software does exist, as does nonfree software that is given aways for zero cost.
A:
But seems some client software of Mysql like Navicat is not GPL license ,it's EULA.Does the Navicat use the Mysql library?
Z Fan
2010-07-20 12:44:10
If you have a question, **ask** a question, don't **answer** one with something that isn't an answer.
David Dorward
2010-07-20 12:47:14