Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

stgraber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#31

Post by stgraber »

jraph wrote: post #18
ropyeett wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors/agreement for the details. In short, you don't lose your own copyright but you grant them a license to do whatever they want including re-license as they wish without having to ever consult you, allowing for your code to be used within their closed source projects under any license they wish.

Ah, right, it's not a copyright assignment, but there is a CLA. Confused the two concepts, rookie mistake. So yeah, not good. I will edit my comment. I would even say that not mentioning the CLA and mentioning the absence of copyright assignment in the announcement is quite dishonest.

Yes it is indeed

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#32

Post by loloquwowndueo »

kragen wrote: post #21

the main reason there's a version 2 of the apache license is to ensure that it's clearly legal to incorporate apache-licensed code into gpled systems such as this new version of lxd it is correct that the ubuntu company cannot prohibit people from copying and modifying stephane's code, or indeed the entire previous version of lxd, under the terms of the apache license. but they can certainly keep using his code in ne…

It doesn’t look like Stéphane has a direct problem with Canonical or anyone else using his code - it’s why he licensed it under Apache in the first place. He’s mostly calling attention to the attempt to relicense as AGPLv3 some code that Canonical has no authority to relicense.

The fact that contributions to LXD are now under AGPLv3 and require signing canonical’s much maligned CLA are concerns but I think the author nuances them well : it’s unfortunate (in his pov - me, I always prefer a Copy left license) but well within Canonical’s rights.

(Edit: Stéphane beat me by a minute and explains his own position better than I could ;)

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#33

Post by jraph »

stgraber wrote: post #31
jraph wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, right, it's not a copyright assignment, but there is a CLA. Confused the two concepts, rookie mistake. So yeah, not good. I will edit my comment. I would even say that not mentioning the CLA and mentioning the absence of copyright assignment in the announcement is quite dishonest.

Yes it is indeed

My best wishes for your fork!

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#34

Post by tsimionescu »

shp0ngle wrote: post #12

"As a result, Canonical cannot release LXD under the AGPLv3 license and likely never will be able to. LXD is now under a weird mix of Apache2 and AGPLv3 with no clear metadata indicating what file or what part of each file is under one license or the other." IANAL but that's not true? You can take Apache2 and relicense it under AGPL? You can take "less copyleft" license and make it "more copyleft". https://www.gnu.or…

Licenses don't typically allow licensees to re-license code. You can use Apache v2 code in a proprietary or AGPL product and redistribute binaries or other source code derived from it under any other license, but you can't change the license of the original code: anyone can still use it under the Apache license.

Conversely, a copyright holder may re-license code. Depending on the exact terms of the old license, this may mean that you are no longer allowed to use it under the old license (at least, not unless you got it from someone who legally obtained it back when it had the old license).

So, if the code is not relicensed, you can theoretically download a bundle that claims it's AGPLv3, select the portions that are licensed under Apache, and incorporate those into your proprietary product without providing any access to your sources, and be legally in the clear.

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#35

Post by Macha »

stgraber wrote: post #29
kragen wrote: post #21

the main reason there's a version 2 of the apache license is to ensure that it's clearly legal to incorporate apache-licensed code into gpled systems such as this new version of lxd it is correct that the ubuntu company cannot prohibit people from copying and modifying stephane's code, or indeed the entire previous version of lxd, under the terms of the apache license. but they can certainly keep using his code in ne…

Anyone is welcome to use my code in a proprietary piece of code, indeed the Apache2 license allows it. What it doesn't allow is for my code to be re-licensed to AGPLv3 nor can they grant themselves a license to do whatever they want (their CLA). So indeed they could keep importing Incus bugfixes and new features into LXD, but that code would need to have an exception carved out in their current contribution requireme…

The reason they need the CLA is to exempt themselves from the burdens of the AGPL license, however.

It's not much work to use Apache 2.0 in a proprietary (or AGPLv3) project. Unlike the AGPLv3 it doesn't impose many burdens or the project using it.

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#37

Post by gpm »

> However, if you were altering LXD in any way, then you will need to familiarize yourself with the AGPLv3 license as unlike Apache2, it does require any changes be made available under the AGPLv3 even if you don’t expose your users to your modified binaries.

This is a fascinating argument...

You're saying that you cannot add compatibly licensed code into APLv3 software (that you don't also have a more permissive license to modify/own the copyright to) without violating the AGPLv3.

I think it also follows that you can't legally modify AGPLv3 software containing bits of compatibly licensed code unless you also have more permissive rights to it or your fully strip out the compatibly licensed code?

I have to say, I'm reading the AGPLv3 and it seems like a reasonable conclusion, at least if you also distribute ("convey") it. In particular the clause that says "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy [...]" would seem to imply this.

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#38

Post by jraph »

stgraber wrote: post #29
kragen wrote: post #21

the main reason there's a version 2 of the apache license is to ensure that it's clearly legal to incorporate apache-licensed code into gpled systems such as this new version of lxd it is correct that the ubuntu company cannot prohibit people from copying and modifying stephane's code, or indeed the entire previous version of lxd, under the terms of the apache license. but they can certainly keep using his code in ne…

Anyone is welcome to use my code in a proprietary piece of code, indeed the Apache2 license allows it. What it doesn't allow is for my code to be re-licensed to AGPLv3 nor can they grant themselves a license to do whatever they want (their CLA). So indeed they could keep importing Incus bugfixes and new features into LXD, but that code would need to have an exception carved out in their current contribution requireme…

I guess you already thought carefully about all this, but wouldn't you actually prevent them from reusing your code (in a closed version) if it were released under (A)GPL?

Because if you keep releasing your code under Apache 2, you prevent yourself from taking their code while allowing them to take yours. You could lose at this game.

If you released under AGPL, you would reverse the direction. They would not take your code without the CLA but you'd be fine with taking theirs.

I know, you mentioned companies disliking AGPL.

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#39

Post by HankB99 »

LXD is container technology, right? I've used Docker for years now (in my home lab.) I took a stab at using Podman a couple times but the friction was too high (and my motivation to switch too low.)

How does LXD compare to Docker? Should I be interested in it or just continue with Docker for the handful of containers I'm using (Gitea, Checkmk, MariaDB, Mosquitto.) The license is not interesting to me unless there's a technical advantage. (And for my personal use the license is probably moot anyway.)

Host OS would be Debian, if it matters.

Thanks!

Re: LXD now re-licensed and under a CLA

#40

Post by usr1106 »

1letterunixname wrote: post #28
photonbeam wrote: post #10

Time to support the fork

AGPL: The radioactive license when you don't want anyone to use your "open" source. (Google, Meta, and more cannot and will not use AGPL code at all.) This change to LXD harms VPSes and any company that uses LXD in SaaS.

When you don't want Amazon, Google etc to earn big money on your work. Actually not even that, they could if they played fair and contributed back all changes they make. But they don't want to play fair.
Post reply on HN