Replies: 2 comments
-
From my understanding, this would require dual licensing files? e.g. adding a license text to the top of each individual file? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
It depends on the file. For files where all authors consent to relicense as AGPLv3, that file could be licensed under AGPLv3 only. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Select Topic Area
General
Body
In LizardByte/Sunshine#150, there was a valiant effort to re-license Sunshine under AGPL v3, which was ultimately aborted because two possible authors of the work did not provide consent.
As it turns out, however, consent of those two authors is not necessary to distribute Sunshine primarily under AGPLv3. This is because section 13 of the current license (the GPL v3) explicitly allows combining works licensed under the GPLv3 with works licensed under the AGPLv3:
So, almost all of the code can be relicensed under AGPLv3 (since the authors to most of the code consented), and then that code can be combined with the GPLv3 code, and the "combination" (including the GPLv3-only part) will be subject to the "the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License". This will accomplish the goal of LizardByte/Sunshine#150.
I think this path forward is desirable, and it can be implemented with a pull request that updates the licensing information based on the consents already given in LizardByte/Sunshine#150 combined with the permissions given to us by section 13 of the GPLv3.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions