Post

ah interesting. i understand basically nothing about software copyright and after 10 minutes of reading i feel none the wiser, other than it sounds complicated and fraught. might have to keep this one as a personal experiment and away from the main repo

ya thats what i gathered which seems difficult to impossible for something with 100+ contributors and an existing (MIT) license. though i am still not totally clear what deploy connotes. like does loading it via a script tag in hazel mean that hazel must be relicensed?

0 reposts2 likes

i dunno but maybe. speak to a lawyer but i reckon so. for me what's "technically allowed" is less important than acting with consent and in the spirit of the intention. so I would look at making anything you build with it AGPL too

ya im not particularly interested in what's technically allowed compared to the spirit either but thats not at all clear to me either, if anything less so. it seems simple enough if youre starting something new over which you have control, but otherwise it seems complicated

i dont think i have the right to do this. from what im reading i may be able to license my integration code as AGPL though but im not confident i understand that correctly. likely i should just ask felix or alex what they think

The MIT licence is AGPL-compatible, so this relicensing is fine. This combination would almost certainly create a derivative of both previous works. Any derivatives from this new version would be AGPL, but anything that doesn’t draw on both is unaffected. You could publish but not upstream this.