slack q and a 2019 05 21
| Time | Icon | Name | Message |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01:16 |  |
Jared Thirsk | Hi, I have a question about the AGPL license. I work on a commercial software (a web application that is both SaaS and deployed on-premesis) that produces reports among other things, and I am wondering if I can use Vivliostyle without releasing the source code of my own software (I cannot do that.) I have done some reading about AGPL and there is some confusion, (and some companies like MongoDB have provided add-on promises or clarifications.) Is the intent that use of Vivliostyle should not be usable by any applications except for the relatively small number of web applications that also have the AGPL or GPL license? Thank you. (If the intent is to allow non-AGPL programs to be able to use this software, a clause like this to augment the AGPL may help accomplish that: http://mo.morsi.org/blog/2009/08/13/lesser_affero_gplv3/) |
| 01:22 |  |
Johannes Wilm |
@Jared Thirsk. That is a relatively complex question. I do not speak for Vivliostyle nor any other license holder. And I'm not a lawyer. To use Vivliostyle in the browser, you'll need an answer from them.However, if you run Vivliostyle apart from the rest of ypur application, as a service on the server inside a headline browser, then that should be considered as a separate software so that the AGPL would not apply to the rest of ypur web app. |
| 08:10 | |
Jared Thirsk |
@Johannes Wilm Yes, I am aware of the arms-length approach to wrapping GPL/AGPL software in its own process with its own API, but I see this as not a good option for 3 reasons: 1) it goes against the author's intent of the GPL/AGPL (assuming they truly understand what this license entails), 2) it is crazy to have to turn a software library into a service -- it is a waste of my time, and results in less efficient architecture -- it is hard to believe this is ever the best option, that a) GPL/AGPL can be reduced to be this toothless, b) that library authors would be happy with this hurdle to punish organizations that were not in a position to release their source, 3) there is some debate about whether this is legally sufficient to constitute a non-modified version of the AGPL, and therefore a) my company's lawyers may be too scared to let me do it, or b) Vivliostyle's or whoevers lawyers may someday decide to come after us and try to get us to release the source code to our decades of intellectual property. |