Is there a specific conflict like ZFS-on-Linux that you want to avoid, or are you just asking "how can I most benefit from other people's work without letting anyone else benefit from mine?"
back
1 comments
Exactly. This is the ZFS-on-Linux situation.
I prefer to keep all my code as much as possible mit and I share them on Github. This is my mode of operation.
Grafana makes me unable to use MIT for that use.
>keep all my code
Huh? Grafana isn't your code, it's someone else's code that you'd be using. Unless I misinterpreted, and you are a Grafana contributor. If you are, you could dual license your contributions under AGPL and MIT, if you wanted.
Without knowing what they work on, one obvious case is code that interacts with grafana; extensions, plugins, whatever. For that matter, it's perfectly possible to maintain your own personal patchsets without being a "contributor" per se. Niche, but plausible.
Plugins don't seem to have been relicensed looking at https://github.com/grafana/grafana/blob/HEAD/LICENSING.md
I'm not sure if that is correct in the agpl sense...
I think you misunderstand the ZFS-on-Linux situation. The problem with that is that ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and Linux is licensed under the GPL, both of which are FOSS licenses, but there's no legal way to combine them. In your situation, it sounds like there is a legal way to combine them, and you just don't like the license that it would require you to release your code under.
What is your code? A fork of Grafana? Plugins for it? Or something else?
The AGPL3 license means that all my MIT code I distribute in a package will be considered AGPL3. So I can't combine Grafana, and my original work and improve both.
This is a stated purpose of GPL3 / AGPL3. I am happy to be told I am wrong and it is possible.
If you are not offering a product built on top of Grafana as a network-available service, then there is no difference between the new license and the previous GPL3 license for you whatsoever.
If you are, then your obligation would change to specifically making only that work which builds on top of the Grafana code available to others for free, along with the AGPL3-licensed Grafana code. You are not required to license that code that you wrote in any way, with the caveat that others may freely use it.
The previous license was Apache 2.0, not GPLv3
My mistake, regardless, Apache2.0 is GPL3 compat.
It depends on what you mean by "combine". If you are releasing a Linux distro that has as one piece of software Grafana, you'll be fine.
If your software is in effect an extension of Grafana, you will need to release source code under AGPLv3.
Exactly. This is my understanding.
Edited: Or pick a fork and live on it forever.
Edited: Or write my own Grafana
This conflicts with everything you've said so far on this topic. I don't think you do understand.
IANAL, but pretty sure you can license all of your code MIT, while also making it part of an AGPLv3 system; someone else can already distrubute your MIT licensed code under AGPL3, since that would comply with the terms of the MIT license.
Yes you can. The purpose of (A)GPLv3 is that someone else cannot benefit from you work if you cant benefit from theirs. It is a matter of leveraging cooperation.