Re:LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
by tecleandor on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @05:22PM
(#38619530)
You're both kinda correct.
What Stephane was complaining about is the whole Snap package for lxd has been marked as AGPL, and that's not correct.
Check in the store, down, in the license info section:
Edit: also, from what I see in the commit, it doesn't make much distinction between what's AGPL and what not. https://github.com/canonical/lxd/pull/12663/commits/b8ff449d...
Re:LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
by headhasthoughts on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @06:04PM
(#38620030)
It is correct; the binary is AGPL, and Snap is a binary distribution method.
Nope, the binary is under both licenses. Just because they are compatible doesn't mean you can ignore the terms of one of them.
Re:LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
by notpushkin on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @07:40PM
(#38621071)
I sometimes “editorialize” license names for Lunni Marketplace, too. [1]
I think it’s fine: the binary is under both licenses, but one requires you to publish a notice and the other requires you to publish a notice and all source code for both parts. Since you want to know what “license burden” you’ll have to bear when you’re looking for an app in a distribution platform like this, I think it’s fair to just specify the more restrictive license.
(IANAL)
Re:LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
by CoastalCoder on Tuesday December 12, 2023 @05:20PM
(#38619490)
Thanks for the correction. Seems like the headline was incorrect in a different way.
> Canonical has decided to change the default contributions to the LXD project to AGPLv3 to align with our standard license for server-side code. All Canonical contributions have been relicensed and are now under AGPLv3. Community contributions remain under Apache 2.0.