Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoastalCoder | Hacker News Reader

[deleted]

You, too, are wrong. From Canonical's actual announcement:

> 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.

Thanks for the correction. Seems like the headline was incorrect in a different way.

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:

https://snapcraft.io/lxd

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...

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.

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)

[1]: https://lunni.dev/docs/marketplace/

The submitted title was "Canonical re-licenses LXD under AGPLv3, slaps a CLA on top". I've changed it to the article's title, in keeping with HN's rule: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If the current title isn't accurate, and anyone can suggest a more accurate and neutral one, we can change it again.

Lxd as a whole is certaily now only available under the AGPLv3 license. Some parts are also available under the Apache 2.0 license. And Canonical are bound by that agreement to tell you such; but it is still factual to say you have to agree to the AGPLv3 to distribute it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com