Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1cvmask | Hacker News Reader

Looks cool. But you have split up the licenses as Apache and AGPL. Why the split? You could prevent the likes of AWS competition with a blanket AGPL etc... Am I missing something? Or is Apache license OSS some derivative work and from another project?

View on HN

From what I can understand, if you host Focalboard on your server and update some configurations and templates to suit your needs, you are not required to open source these updates (which you would otherwise have to under AGPL) since those specific files are Apache 2.0 licensed.

i think AGPL only makes that requirement if you give out YOUR version to users. If you are just using for yourself or internal team, AGPL does not require you to publish those changes.

AGPL doesn't make any distinction between public vs private use. If software you write depends on or extends AGPL code, it must also be licensed as AGPL, period. You do only need to offer the source code to users of the software, but that is still a burden, especially when all you are doing is updating config files.

as far as i understand the license requirements don't get triggered by your own employees because they are bound to you by the employment contract, so it's like sharing with yourself

If I use the software privately, can we just say that I as the only user distributed the modified code to myself automatically?

Maybe it's a means of last resort to prevent the work from effectively going to waste in case of bankruptcy/low adoption?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com