Canonical changes the license of LXD to AGPL
Canonical changes the license of LXD to AGPL
discourse.ubuntu.com
LXD 5.20 has been released
34 comments
-
-
Is this a based move? From Canonical? (°0°)
-
No, it comes together with a CLA being required to contribute. In other words, Canonical (and only Canonical) is still allowed to sell exceptions to the AGPL.
Yes, the post says there is no copyright assignment. That's extremely carefully chosen wording to avoid mention of the CLA which was made required in the same commit as the license change. It's "just" a super extended license that lets them do whatever, not assignment.
-
Quite the same case as with matrix. I very much prefer AGPL over all the other permissive licences, but I don't know, the CLA leaves a bad taste in the mouth
-
Can somebody explain in a few words what's CLA? Does it limit contributors rights?
-
I tried reading through it and I don't understand completely if they reserve the right to relicense in a way that is against the interest of contributor.
They say that the contributor retains the copyright and can do whatever they want with the code they contributed, which is good, they also say that they can sublicense your contributions, which, as far as I know, means they couldn't make it more permissive, but only more restrictive, at least that is the case with Creative Commons
-
-
-
No other company will contribute to LXD now. This is 100% a Canonical tool. Were the big clouds looking at deploying LXD so Canonical tried to block them?
-
I think the reason it's a Canonical product is because nobody else was contributing to it before. So nothing has changed.
-
What
-
34 comments
So they can happily port over code from the Incus fork but Incus cannot import the code without changing the license first. It's meant to be a one-way street. Typical Canonical.
Look, I'm usually first in line to shit on Canonical, but I can't get mad at them adopting AGPL. This is objectively the best license for server software. Incus should also switch to AGPL for all Canonical code, and seek to have contributors license their code as AGPL as well.
I will however point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency of it, because the Snap server is still proprietary after all of this time. If this is their "standard for server-side code" then apply it to Snaps or quit lying to us.
Can you explain to a person who knows little about licenses, such as myself, what makes AGPL so good?
Obviously their own code can be sold at their discretion. It's not about libre software.
Apache is too permissive a license anyways. This is kind of the point of copyleft licenses — a feature, not a bug.
The CLA is still in place. Usual Canonical.
This incus? https://github.com/lxc/incus I don't understand
Yes but I don't know what you don't understand. One-directional flow of FLOSS licenses?