Recent searches
Search options
So Canonical has now gone ahead and relicensed #LXD to AGPLv3 (kinda) and added a CLA!
https://stgraber.org/2023/12/12/lxd-now-re-licensed-and-under-a-cla/
And to add to the fun, Canonical has changed the LXD package license to just "AGPLv3" which is obviously incorrect.
I filed a complaint here: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/incorrect-license-information-for-the-lxd-snap/38121
@stgraber Their announcement just says "changing the Default", but yeah, encourage people to not sign CLA's!
@purpleidea COPYING in the repo is AGPLv3 and there's no sign of SPDX headers or other metadata to indicate what code is under Apache2...
@stgraber look to commit where they changed it? If they removed your copyrights that's not allowed.
@stgraber I'd strongly recommend they add a COPYRIGHT file that explains the license of certain past contributions.
But they're very close to the "it's legal" line. But you should shame them for requiring a CLA.
Even smarter: keep pulling in their AGPL patches, but *don't* require a CLA. Publish yours for `incus` under AGPL. Out compete them.
@stgraber IANAL, but if one combines AGPL-3.0 with Apache-2.0, the resulting *binary* can only be distributed under the terms of the AGPL-3.0. This is how "GPL compatible" licensing works.
https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
IANAL but that is correct. Given the AGPL's infectiousness, the entire codebase must be distributed under its terms.
Because the Apache license is GPL-compatible (AGPL is a superset of its terms), this is permitted.
The only way the Apache license plays into this is that some parts of the code are available under the Apache License's terms in addition to the AGPL's.
I do not believe this is worth mentioning in a package metadata field.
Same license description was in the homebrew change and was merged recently.