Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

As a contributor, couldn’t I use it under the terms of the GPL and make GPL-licensed derivative works and ignore their AGPL nonsense? If it is GPL then I understand that I am under no obligation to license my contributions under AGPL.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

View on HN

That’s right. You can simply choose GPL and ignore the AGPL part for EloqKV. The reason we use both is that, in other projects, we need to support both GPL and AGPL. EloqKV and all its dependencies are either developed by us or licensed under more permissive terms, so you can choose either license. However, EloqDoc is under AGPL (https://github.com/eloqdata/eloqdoc) and we cannot relicense it under GPL because it includes some AGPL-licensed code from MongoDB.

Would you accept AGPL licensed pull requests?

EloqKV deployed on cloud is the same version hosted on github (the AGPL requires that users of EloqKV in your cloud service be available.

If you are taking AGPL licensed pull requests you can incorporate source from Aerospike and ScyllaDB (pre-relicense).

Yes, of course. Dropping GPL2 support (or you dropping AGPLv3 support in your fork) only affects the future changes made after dropping support... you can't revoke the GPL licenses on the existing commits.

Presumably they aren't going to merge any changes that drop the AGPL license...

Also not a lawyer.

You could license your contributions (if substantial enough to warrant copyright) with any license, for instance BSD 2 clause. (If your license is not compatible with the GPLs they should not accept your contribution.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com