LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
stgraber.org
LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#2Looks like Canonical also messed up the licensing in their package: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/incorrect-license-information-f...
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#3[deleted]
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#4Linux containers project. Foreshadowing of this move at https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#5[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.
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#6[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.
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#7[deleted]
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.
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#8[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.
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:
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...
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#9[deleted]
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.
Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA
#10Time to support the fork