+1
Answered

Clarify licensing

Paul Eggleton 6 years ago updated by Afroze Khan 2 years ago 5
In git master, docs/LICENSE and docs/COPYRIGHT say that the code is licensed under LGPLv3, however the ajenti.org website does not mention this at all and instead says that personal/in-house use is free but commercial use is restricted. Is the code still LGPLv3 licensed?

The context of my question is this: I currently maintain a recipe for packaging Ajenti for the Yocto Project / OpenEmbedded here:
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/meta-openemb...
I had planned to bring the recipe up-to-date; however If the licensing terms have got more complicated it's likely that we would no longer maintain this recipe.

Thanks,
Paul

Answer

Answer
Answered
Thank you for the request. I have totally missed docs/ during licensing transition.
I've just updated both ajenti.org and master branch.
And of course, Ajenti remains licensed under LGPLv3 when in the context of FOSS project such as OpenEmbedded.
Answer
Answered
Thank you for the request. I have totally missed docs/ during licensing transition.
I've just updated both ajenti.org and master branch.
And of course, Ajenti remains licensed under LGPLv3 when in the context of FOSS project such as OpenEmbedded.
OK, thanks for the clarification; however I think the additional restrictions may not have the effect you intend.

Most commercial + open source projects tend to use a standard, well-understood license with no additional restrictions, and then offer an alternative path for commercial users that allows them to license the software under alternative terms that allow them to avoid requirements of the standard license that they might find onerous (such as the need to provide source code). This keeps things simple - it means for example I can just state the well-known license name in the LICENSE field in the OpenEmbedded recipe and it is immediately clear to people what their obligations are. (If LGPLv3 doesn't work for you on its own, I'd suggest picking another standard license that would, such as AGPLv3.)

Of course, you are free to set whatever licensing terms you wish, but the current licensing makes it hard for me to continue including.
Unfortunately, AGPL doesn't impose the required restrictions either; specifically, it doesn't stop hosting companies from selling standard Ajenti while providing its source code.
+2
First, I should say I fully respect the choices you make regarding the licensing of Ajenti, which is a great product. If you don't wish Ajenti to be used without you getting a fee in some circumstances, that's fine.

Secondly, I'm not a lawer, so this is just my interpretation...

However, there are some fundamental problems with using the LGPL the way you intend it.

> "And of course, Ajenti remains licensed under LGPLv3 when in the context of FOSS project such as OpenEmbedded."

Yes and no...

- No, because you're trying to impose a further restriction on the LGPL. A derived "FOSS" product based on such conditions would not longer be open source (by the OSI definition, point 1: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.").
It would also be a problem for FOSS projects that merly use it (unless it's an optional dependency perhaps).

- Yes, because it seems the couple of lines added at the top of the LGPL licence (in docs/LICENSE in the repository) might simply be void. Indeed, the LGPL is an extension of the GPL, and the GPL states (in section 7): "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."

Clearly, the latter isn't your intent (having a plain LGPL). For this reason, it would be better to have your own licence (which by the OSI definition will not be open source). Stating Ajenti is available under LGPL is confusing (both for users and authors apparently) and it certainly doesn't seem to have the desired effect.
+1

Hey, bumping this thread because I am still unclear.

Is the Ajenti.org updated? Because it says its MIT Licensed now. I just want to know If I can take this and modify the source code/styling/branding.  

Also, are all of the products under the same license, ie Agenti 1, Agenti V, and Agenti 2?