- Agpl vs apache license EDIT 1 : I re-read your GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) version 3: Apache-2. 0 license per these terms. In my opinion AGPL deserves to be much more popular. The very page you've linked to makes this clear: > Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, because the GPLv3 license accepts our software into GPLv3 works. "What about AGPL libraries then?" you'd ask. com/Steven C. @MichaelT this answer helps to understand difference between I am confused by the general preference of the Rust community to dual-license under both MIT and Apache-2. Dlaczego kolejna GPL? Czekaj, co? Kolejna GPL? Umm, tak. Follow edited Feb 8, 2023 at 8:15. 0 last year. 0变更为Affero General Public License（AGPL）v3。这一变动不仅引起了开源社区的广泛关注，也为我们提供了深入理解和思考开源协议 When Grafana Labs CEO and co-founder Raj Dutt announced to the team that the company would be relicensing our core open source projects from Apache 2. , SaaS), modifications must also be offered openly under the The AGPL, short for the Affero General Public License is one of these licenses, more specifically a strong copyleft license, and is arguably one Most surveys indicate that the vast majority of open source projects use the MIT license, the Apache license, and the GPL or their variants. The common understanding while I was working on Apache code a while back was that you could incorporate BSD, MIT, and similar licensed libraries but you could not do the same for GPL based licenses. your understanding of the LGPL is probably correct but your understanding of the AGPL is very wrong Copyleft licenses maximize freedom across the entire downstream, at the cost of also applying more restrictions. The advent of open-source changed the entire software industry, for once and for ever. 0: 28 The MIT License (MIT) 28 GPL-3: 27 UNLICENSE: 27 Artistic-2. 0; java; Share. 0 is a fully permissive license that allows for free use The permissive licenses (Apache 2, MIT, ) are clearly overtaking the more strict copy-left licenses (GPL) in popularity. The original Work would have to be distributed under the original license. Open-Source-Lizenzen sind entscheidend für Softwareentwicklung und Verbreitung von Open-Source-Software. Apache 2. But other parts of the software can be under compatible licenses such as the Apache 2. 0 和 mit license 是开源世界中最常见的三种许可证。它们各有特点，对开源项目的贡献者和使用者都有深远影响。本文将详细解析这三种许可证的差异，帮助你更好地理解开源世界的运行规则。 All groups and messages Going forward, we will be relicensing our core open source projects (Grafana, Grafana Loki, and Grafana Tempo) from the Apache License 2. However, there are some key differences between the two licenses. 0）を継承する必要はありません。 Apache License 2. AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (like AWS) from using AGPL-licensed code to build managed services. The Software Freedom Law Center provides practical advice for developers about including permissively licensed source. 0 License Inconvénients de la licence AGPL : Elle dissuade certaines équipes de créer des librairies open source, car elle oblige tous les autres codes à devenir des logiciels sous GPL. 0 可能是一个更好的选择。 但是，如果你修改了这个软件，或者你把它和其他软件放在一起形成一个新产品，你必须把你修改过的软件或者新产品的全部源代码公开出来，而且你也要 GPL: you have to release source code if you link against and distribute the binary, but don't if you just provide a service; AGPL: you have to allow the source to be downloaded even if you never distribute the binary but do provide a service; i. Differences in distribution, linking, modification, private use of open source licenses like MIT, GNU GPL, Apache 2. The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2. It has alleged that both Nutanix and WEKA use its software without correctly and publicly acknowledging that The main difference between the two licenses is that the AGPL includes a clause that requires any modifications or additions to the software to be released under the same license, even if the software is being used over a network. In the case of AGPL-licensed, this may be considered a modification and this has specific implications in terms of your obligations and which conditions of the license are triggered. There are many different types of open source licenses, including the AGPL, GPL, MIT, and Apache licenses. The same section with that requirement also says you may use a different license terms for that notice as long as it complies with the terms of the Apache 2. Well, using an AGPL library would mean every work is a derivative work This licensing incompatibility applies only when some Apache project software becomes a derivative work of some GPLv3 software, because then the Apache software would have to be distributed under GPLv3. But the control on who can do what with open-sourced code, has been a challenge, and is still a challenge Apache license vs. 0 code, the license for the MinIO server, gateway and client is now AGPL v3. 0（Apache License, Version 2. Others licenses are worse than GPL in terms of copyleft contamination. Choose a Copyleft License (GPL, AGPL) if you GPL vs MIT vs Apache vs BSD vs LGPL by Juan November 25, 2023 1 minutes • 194 words Table of contents. It's viral. 0 and GNU General Public License v3. はじめにソフトウェア開発では、オープンソースライセンスのライブラリやコードを利用することが一般的です。特に有名なライセンスとして MITライセンス、Apacheライセンス、GPLライセンス、 HTTPサーバーの「Apache」などもApache財団が開発・提供しているOSSを中心に採用されています。Apache Licenseの主要なバージョンには、Apache License v2. Nuestro artículo principal "Comparativa Detallada: Licencias GPL vs. 2: 1 APACHE SOFTWARE LICENSE VERSION 2: 1 APACHE PUBLIC LICENSE, VERSION 2: 1 APACHE LISENSE 2. licensing gpl3. licensing; agpl; Share. For more information, see Searching for repositories. I can't recall any common open source license which I http://filmsbykris. Apache License是一种商业友好的开源许可证，由Apache基金会制定。它允许商业软件使用受Apache许可证保护的代码，同时允许修改和分发代码，但必须遵循一定的要求，如保留版权声明和许可证文本等。Apache许可证适用于许多知名的开源项目，如Apache When it comes to businesses the AGPL license has been hugely helpful. Grafana、Grafana Loki 和 Grafana Tempo 从 Apache License 2. This can help answer the most common question, which is whether a license is GPL compatible. 0 (Apache-2. FAQ. Permissive licenses are commonly used: The most common permissive license in open source projects is the MIT license. 0, January 2004 Open source software may use other licenses like GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) and GNU Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL). 0 explicitly lays down the grant of patent rights while using, modifying or distributing Apache licensed software, and lists the circumstances when such grant gets withdrawn. Why Apache v2. only deployed on a backend server). Apache and Apache Lucene The GPLv3 vs Apache 2. The Apache License requires license notifications and copyrights on the distributed code and/or as a notice in the software. Recommendations to use Apache 2. 0 project and change the license to AGPL 3. Prepárate para explorar un mundo de posibilidades y descubrir cómo estas licencias impactan en el desarrollo y distribución de software. Permissive licenses, such as the MIT License and the Apache The AGPL license extends requirements to network-based software services. What is the license of the original example code from the textbook? (Hint: read the 'LICENSE' file): Apache License. In this case since the AGPLv3 is a superset of the Apache 2. 0に加えて独自の利用条件を定めたり、異なるライセンスで配布することもできます。 Hi, 1/ Using AGPL means that all code that interact directly or indirectly with FIND should be release under the AGPL license. I haven't developed any applications where GPL would imo be preferable. 0 includes explicit patenting rules. 0 and BSD-3 licenses are also widely used, making up about 70% of the projects in the Libraries. 0 license requires you to keep the license file, the NOTICE file if there is one, and show notice for modified files. It also includes a clause that allows for the redistribution of the software under different terms, making it flexible and protective. ; MIT und Apache-Lizenzen sind permissiv, erlauben Nutzung in proprietären Projekten ohne Quellcode This means that code released under Apache License 2. So if this kind of compatibility is needed, then Apache License 2. 0 modified with Commons Clause? When you search by a family license, your results will include all licenses in that family. Not so with the AGPL. [8] 文章浏览阅读5. Frepple choose the AGPL license in an attempt to protect the commercial Enterprise Edition of the software. 0 转为 AGPL v3 许可证。而相关插件、代理与部分特定库仍将保持 Apache 许可状态。 此次许可证变更并不阻止用户使用、修改或向他人提供特准的开源软件。 文章浏览阅读8. 0 says that modifications should be published if it's run over a web-service but it's a viral license so other open-source projects cannot use my library unless they are AGPL-3. All of the major new projects released lately have been Apache 2. In principle, this is incompatible with the MPL license, but the MPL-2. [19] [20] [21] See also. If we want to release a piece of code under an Apache License 2. 0, as opposed to simply licensing under MPL-2. For libraries, we distinguish three kind of cases. Mureinik. Quote from Wikipedia: It is a permissive free software license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software provided all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms. 0 Debate. They are placed in their own independent “-contrib” files. In this blog post, we will explain – in great brevity – and only to rough overview, the differences between these The major difference between AGPL and other copyleft licenses is that it closes a loophole so that developers must use the AGPL license even for software that isn’t explicitly distributed (i. Con. Roughly, AGPLv3-licensed software implies the following obligations: you are not required to publish your software. However, there are some key differences between the two licenses: Copyleft: AGPL 3 is a copyleft license, which means that any software derived from AGPL-licensed code must also be licensed under AGPL 3 Could we use a permissive license (Apache 2. For example, when you use the query license:gpl, your results will include repositories licensed under GNU General Public License v2. 0) When a person or company wants to use a project licensed under—for example—GPL v3, Apache 2. 0: Boost Software License: BSD: The contents of this document, unless otherwise expressly stated, are licensed under the CC-BY-SA-4. Libraries. You can find the most up-to-date information about the licensing change on this resource page. 0があります。 Apache License v2. 2, published in May 2017 (OJ 19/05/2017 L128 p. 0 cannot be used in GPL v1 and v2 software. 0 Apache-2. However, derivative works, larger projects, or modifications are allowed to carry different licensing terms when distributed and are 在權利方面 Apache 授權針對著作權、專利授權以及商標權都有詳細的規定，著作權上允許製作衍生物、公開展示、公開演出、再授權和散佈。專利授權上允許製造、使用、販售等權利。商標權上明確規定 Apache 授權並無授權 The Affero General Public License (AGPL) is a software license developed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). You can find information in GitHub about what is being relicensed for Grafana, Loki, and Tempo. This is a radical simplification, but if nothing else it can be a helpful framework in discussing The MIT license is GPL-compatible. 59–64) has extended the EUPL Apache license; BSD license; The MIT license; The mozilla license; Edit: (Pointed out to me, by 3 people, no less) whether or not a license allows a user to use the software in a commercial software is covered in this question. EDIT: I'm talking about GPLv3 / AGPL. This makes the MIT License more straightforward but Wichtigste Punkte. Improve this question. 0 License includes additional provisions regarding patent rights, which can provide extra protection for developers. This is based on Section 4 of the Apache License v2. When I review a side-by-side diff of the GPLv3 and the AGPLv3 the only significant change seems to me to be this addition in the section 13 of the AGPLv3:. amazedgaggle amazedgaggle. 0 for non-commercial use only" is a bit like giving someone a bike and saying, "You have free license to take and ride this bike anywhere in the world you like," and then immediately saying, "By the way TLDR; if you are working on a commercial software-as-a-service, GPL is technically ok, but AGPL is a nonstarter. What AGPL does on top of GPL is the redefinition of user. 0: 26 Fair: 25 MPL v2. AGPL is the same as GPL; therefore if your app is using AGPL code it has to be AGPL licensed. If you offer the program as a service (e. Apache license; BSD license; The MIT license; The mozilla license; Edit: (Pointed out to me, by 3 people, no less) whether or not a license allows a user to use the software in a commercial software is covered in this question. 0; Share. GPL (General Public License): MIT License: Apache License 2. 0） Apache Licence是著名的非盈利开源组织Apache采用的协议。该协议和BSD类似，同样鼓励代码共享和尊重原作者的著作权，同样允许代码修改，再发布（作为开源或商 You will have of meet the license requirements and AGPL and Apache are quite different. AGPL (Affero General Public License): A stricter derivative of GPL, specifically targeting network-facing software. the one with the anti-tivoization bits. 协议介绍 BSD开源协议（original BSD license、FreeBSD license、Original BSD license） Apache License 2. g. 0、apache license 2. The previous Apache license does not have the AGPL restrictions, so this license change is likely to cause grief for このエントリーはSayanさんによるUnderstanding the AGPL: The Most Misunderstood Licenseの日本語訳になります。 オープンソースの出現は、ソフトウェア産業全体を一変させました。しかし、オープンソースのコードを使って誰が何をできるかを管理することは課題でしたし、今も解決していません。 AGPL-3. 0, Creative Commons, BSD licenses. 文章浏览阅读1. 7k次，点赞13次，收藏11次。gpl适用于那些希望通过网络提供服务但不希望强制提供源代码的情况。agpl更适合那些希望通过网络提供服务并且希望确保用户能够获取源代码的情况。lgpl适用于库和其他模块化组件，允许应用程序使用lgpl库而不必公开整个应用程 [軟體工程師雜談] 輕鬆搞懂開源程式碼(open source)的授權(license) : apache, mit, bsd, gpl, lgpl, agpl0:00 開場0:21 授權的重要性2:03 何謂授權5: #軟體工程師 Grafana Labs is changing the licensing for its core open source projects (Grafana, Grafana Loki, and Grafana Tempo) from the Apache License 2. 0-with-LLVM-exceptions: Apache License, Version 2. 2. Understanding the differences between permissive and restrictive licenses is key when choosing what licenses to use or review during due diligence. Worum handelt es sich bei der AGPL? Bevor wir näher auf die AGPL eingehen, ist es wichtig, 如Apache就不强求基于该协议软件开发的软件以相同协议发布，仅仅要求署名 。这样，以Apache发布的软件就可以作为商业软件的一部分。 3. The Apache License 2. The company says the vast majority of users should be unaffected by this decision, which follows similar moves from other open source software companies. io dataset. MIT vs. 2k次。GPL 协议：即通用性公开许可证(General Public License，简称GPL)。GPL同其它的自由软件许可证一样，许可社会公众享有：运行、复制软件的自由，发行传播软件的自由，获得软件源码的自由，改 Apache License vs. This page is powered by a knowledgeable community that helps you make an informed decision. GPL" for some real projects who have problems with GPL. 0의 파생 저작물의 범위는 다음과 같다. The When a person or company wants to use a project licensed under—for example—GPL v3, Apache 2. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. First, let us be clear that you want a choice of the AGPL or your own, proprietary license, and not the Apache 2. 0 is another popular open source license. I have made the following observations: Apache-2. 0 requires developers to explicitly mark any major changes to the source code (when someone modifies and distributes the software). especially more permissive licenses like the Apache License or the MIT License. 0因其在网络服务方面的独特要求而受到关注。然而，在将其应用于商业场景时，仍然需要谨慎行事，确保遵守所有规定并维护良好的合作关系。通过理解和遵守agpl 3. 아파치 라이선스는 아파치 소프트웨어 재단이 자신의 SW에 적용하기 위해 자체적으로 만든 라이선스로 소스코드 공개 의무 같은 의무사항은 없지만 GPL / AGPL does put more restrictions than, say, the MPL or MIT, because it's putting restrictions on software written outside of the boundaries of the library that has the GPL license applied to it. Open source software licenses play a crucial role in determining how software can be used, modified, and distributed. GPL License What's the Difference? The Apache License and GPL License are both popular open-source licenses that allow users to freely use, modify, and distribute software. Libraries I have mostly licensed under Apache License, but honestly I am not too particular if it's to be permissive. Is that allowed? 这种情况下，AGPL 的传染性会覆盖掉 Apache 2. 0 to be a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL. 0 is a free software license, compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3,[7] meaning that code under GPLv3 and Apache License 2. This hole in the GPL is often called "Application Service Provider" hole. 0: 33 AGPL: 31 Apache Public License v2: 31 Apache-2: 30 CPAL-1. But again, this only works if you're the copyright holder for those parts. Version 2. One smaller difference is that the MPL is file-based copyleft - it only applies to files with the correct license header, so you could add new files to a project without licensing them under the MPL. Joinup has developed the Licensing Assistant that includes a compatibility checker. GPL、BSD、MIT、Mozilla、Apache和LGPL之中做选择 4. 59–64) has extended the EUPL compatibility to GPLv3, AGPL and other licences. 现今存在的开源协议很多，而经过Open Source Initiative组织通过批准的开源协议目前有 80种。我们在常见的开源协议如BSD, Apache, GPL, LGPL, MIT等都是OSI批准的协议。如果要开源自己的代码，最好也是选择这些被批准的开源协议。 这里我们来看几种最常用的开源协议及它们的适用范围，供那些准备开源或者 When comparing MIT License vs AGPL, the Slant community recommends MIT License for most people. bat file however specifies the gpl license. This would be incompatible with ASF's requirement that all Apache software must be distributed under the Apache License 2. The Applications I license under AGPL. "Prevents lock-in" is the primary reason people pick MIT License over the competition. . 0 is compatible with the AGPLv3. The Apache 2. 0 to the Affero General Public License (AGPL) v3. 0で配布されていたからといって、配布元のライセンス（Apache License 2. com/metalx1000This video was sponsored by:Karl ArvidJohn Tedesco - http://stainlesssteeltoolwrap. That's why we would choose AGPL now if and only if we will be sure it would be possible to switch to Apache v2 / MIT in the future. 总的来说，如果您想要一个对商业友好的许可证，允许您在不公开源代码的情况下分发修改过的软件，Apache License 2. 1, which 目录背景开源软件许可证MIT 许可证Apache 许可证其他许可证MIT 许可证 vs Apache 许可证共同点：区别 1：商标使用权区别 2：许可证长度区别 3：小结参考链接 背景 作为程序员，每天的工作都在和开源软件打交道，但很少有机会了解开源项目背后的运作方式。最近脑子里冒出来一些问题，比如：为什么 The Apache License you are somewhat afraid of no one using your code, but you are also afraid of legal ambiguity and patent trolls. Apache License doesn't require derivative or modified works to be distributed using the same license, but you must preserve copyright notices & disclaimers. I can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed product, but can I include GPL-licensed code in a MIT-licensed product? It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the > Anyone can take an existing Apache 2. AGPL 3 vs. You ought to be able to release small OSS libraries as AGPL on github without any hassle and collect $150 在开源软件领域，协议的变更往往牵动着无数开发者和企业的心弦。近期，Grafana Labs宣布了一项重大决定：其旗下的核心开源项目Grafana、Loki和Tempo的开源协议将从Apache License 2. 2/ Using LGPL or MPL means that all modifications of FIND itself should be released under the same license but enables to use FIND in a software with another license. 0: While both licenses are permissive, the Apache 2. Consider your target contributors and whether the community values align That's why we would like to choose the AGPL license initially. 0 only when you create a Derivative Work out of it. However, as a long-term Open Source community members, it is just against our feelings – we want to make it as open and free as possible. 0 is best; so if you are going to use a weak license, whatever the reason, we recommend using that one. Apache gives away all rights to the software and code, provided they include the apache license text in all their distributions. Both AGPL 3 and Apache 2. Improve Apache License是一种商业友好的开源许可证，由Apache基金会制定。它允许商业软件使用受Apache许可证保护的代码，同时允许修改和分发代码，但必须遵循一定的要求，如保留版权声明和许可证文本等。Apache许可证适用于许多知名的开源项目，如Apache The Apache Software License was based in large part on BSD and MIT style licenses. Does not prevent others from taking 1. PROJECT 2 - Unai Ojanguren Pujana 1. In context of choosing The LICENSE file of this project specifies the Apache 2 license, which generally is a nice license even for commercial use. The core TerminusDB team had a long debate about licenses before the release of 1. Follow asked Jan 21, 2016 at 0:34. AGPL 是 GPL 的一个补充, 在GPL 的基础上加了一些限制。GPL 的约束生效前提是该软件"发布"，有的公司就使用 GPL 组件编写web 系统，但是不发布系统，只用这个系统在线提供服务，这样就避免了开源系统代码。 AGPL：The GNU Affero General Public License. 0 and the MIT License are two of the most popular open-source licenses, each offering unique advantages and considerations for software projects. The end user may patent software under the Apache license that The second version of the MPL is compatible with the Apache license, the second version of the GPL or newer, the LGPL version 2. 0, or CC0 (more on these licenses later), it's relatively easy to figure out whether the license in For a complete analysis of the EUPL compatibility (with all OSI-approved licences) please refer to the EUPL compatibility matrix. 0 explicitly defines all the terms and A comparison of GPL, LGPL, and AGPL licenses, examining their key differences, use cases, and impact on software development and distribution Apache License v2 (almost all AWS open source What are the licensing options available for the MinIO object storage suite? * Commercial License * Apache Software License v2 Open Source license and GNU AGPL v3 Open Source license. This is precisely what I've written. Not all copyleft licenses are equal, GPL is not AGPL for example. Saying "Apache 2. I want to give two years warranty on that hardware. Apache 2 software can therefore be included in GPLv3 projects, As I understood the only way to use the free AGPL version of iText is to release the whole project under the same license, AGPL. 0 for some libraries where it made sense. 文章浏览阅读1w次，点赞31次，收藏29次。agpl 3. One of the many reasons for adopting architecture on Android apps is simplify testability isolating the business cases code from modules that require Android dependencies. Apache" es una guía imprescindible para comprender las diferencias entre estas importantes licencias. 33 3 3 bronze MinIO claims WEKA was wrong in its response to MiniO’s accusations of open-source license infringements. 0 is known to be incompatible with GPL-2. 0; BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) License; LGPL (Lesser General Public License) The AGPL triggers when users access the software, even if the software is not distributed to the users, in binary or otherwise. AGPL (Affero General Public License) When you want to ensure that all The MIT license is one of the most permissive open source licenses. AGPL is an answer to the SaaS loophole of GPLv3, iirc. For GPL programs running on your We will examine permissive and copyleft license models, analyze MIT, Apache, GPL and AGPL licenses in depth, and provide a framework for choosing an open source license aligned with your project's goals and audience. 0. 0 too. Two popular licenses in the open source community are the Affero General Public License (AGPL) and the GNU General Public License (GPL). On April 20, 2021, Grafana Labs announced that going forward, our core open source projects will be moving from the Apache License v2. 0 and GPL Compatibility¶. Despite the presence of some Apache License 2. 0 (MPL-2. Search for "Why AGPL" or "AGPL vs. As Andres F. 0 and MIT because companies are happy to contribute if it means software they don’t have to maintain themselves. 0: 27 Apache version 2. The EUPL v1. We received requests from developers at large enterprises to move to a more permissive license, because the use of AGPL was against their company’s policy. The AGPL's terms are almost identical to the GPL's; the sole substantive difference is that it has an extra condition to ensure MongoDB，作为全球领先的NoSQL数据库管理系统，其开源策略一直备受关注。近年来，MongoDB对其开源许可证进行了重大调整，从GNU AGPLv3切换到了SSPL（Server Side Public License，服务器端公共许可证）。这一变化不仅影响了MongoDB的开源生态，也对整个开源社区产生了深远的影响。 MIT License vs Apache License 2. Apache License 2. But Can I Have 2 Licenses 🤔 Licensing. 0 파생 저작물의 범위. 0 are permissive licenses that allow for both commercial and non-commercial use of software. - minio/LICENSE at master · minio/minio. Open-source object software producer MinIO licensed its software originally under the Apache v2 scheme and then moved to GNU’s AGPL v3 license. 0 to AGPLv3. While it has some limitations and complexities, it is a valuable addition to the family of open-source licenses and has been used Apache-加强法制宣传-PaddlePaddle MIT和BSD协议有一个特点：简洁。 这个特点具有两面性，一方面，作为个人开发者，可以放心的使用MIT或BSD协议而不太需要担心背后的法律风险，第二方面，大公司在开源自己软件时，会担心由 The BSD 3 clause license adds a term to the BSD 2 that prevents someone from claiming false endorsement. AGPL The GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) license is a version of the GPLv3 created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) that aims to enforce full copyleft rights on all software that use it. Copyleft licenses enforce openness of modifications. However, please note that you can relicense a work based on Apache License v2. Elle est parfois considérée comme excessive, car tout module dans une librairie dépendante qui utilise l’AGPL soumet tous les autres logiciels à des I have developed and released an open-source Java library under Apache 2. No, you may not distribute the combined daemon using GPLv2 and APLv2 The case with MongoDB is that it uses Apache license for the client code, which poses another question. On the other hand, the AGPL is Apache License 2. 0 转为 AGPL v3 许可证。而相关插件、代理与部分特定库仍将保持 Apache 许可状态。 此次许可证变更并不阻止用户使用、修改或向他人提供特准的开源软件。 MinIO is a high-performance, S3 compatible object store, open sourced under GNU AGPLv3 license. Explore the key differences between Apache, Mozilla, GNU, and AGPL open-source licenses, covering their usage, modification, and distribution terms. 0 is chosen as it provides an explicit patent grant for using the code in question. Essentially, this is akin to saying "Do whatever you want with this software, even use it commercially". This definitely worked, but we believe that this choice also has negatively impacted the usage and growth of Although, there are some differences between the MIT License and Apache: The Apache License 2. If MIT Licensed code is combined with Apache License 2. 0 libraries, with the resulting software being subject to AGPLv3 as well. You also seem to have an incredibly narrow perspective on derivative works. 0 can be combined, as long as the resulting software is licensed under the GPLv3. 0 The Apache License 2. patreon. So yes, you can combine AGPLv3 and Apache 2. It's been tested and used for years by companies like MinIO, Grafana, we learned that many organizations have policies which disallow usage of projects with non-approved licenses like ELv2. 0 and LGPL-2. already said in his answer, it allows basically everything. Introduction. Technically, this makes the AGPL more restrictive than the GPL, which is good in my opinion. What’s moving to AGPL and what’s not? The Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation agree that the Apache License 2. If you code has GPL license then someone copying your code, modifying it and then using it for online services/websites has no obligation to release the modified source code while if your code has an AGPL license then he is legally bound to do so. 수정 코드; AGPL 프로그램과 동일한 프로세스에서 동작하는 Module; AGPL 프로그램과 링크로 연결한 Library; AGPL 프로그램을 상속한 Class; 다음의 경우 GPL의 파생 저작물로 보지 않는다. 1 APACHE V2 LICENSE: 1 APACHE V. Note that the actual licensing; apache-2. Plugins, agents, and certain libraries will remain Apache-licensed. It is considered a permissive license, as it allows users to use, modify, and distribute the code without many restrictions. 7k次。作者 | id Sijbrandij译者 | 弯月出品 | CSDN（ID：CSDNnews）AGPL 许可证的设计初衷是弥补某些人认为的 GPL 许可证中的漏洞。GPL 是一种流行的自由软件许可证，可保证任何收到该软件副本的人都有权免费或付费运行、研究、修改和共享该软件。GPL 许可软件的发行商不得对许可所保证的 Grafana、Grafana Loki 和 Grafana Tempo 从 Apache License 2. Is the GPL license MIT-compatible? i. It achieves what GPL intends. Copyleft licenses indicate that the same l Base on GitHub repositories data, the vast majority of open source projects use the MIT license, the Apache license, and the GPL or their variants. Apache License是一种商业友好的开源许可证，由Apache基金会制定。它允许商业软件使用受Apache许可证保护的代码，同时允许修改和分发代码，但必须遵循一定的要求，如保留版权声明和许可证文本等。Apache许可证适用于许多知名的开源项目，如Apache Hence, the Apache License v2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such 오픈소스 소프트웨어 라이센스(Apache License, GPLm AGPL, LGPL, MIT License, Artistic License, BSD License, MPL) Apache License. However, it does require that any changes made to the code must be clearly marked as such, and that a copy of the Apache License 2. If you have some code you are thinking of releasing under an open source license, and you want a quick overview of the broad-strokes differences between these licenses, you have come to the right place. The GPL licenses (including LGPL and AGPL) require that the entire application is distributed under the terms of the GPL license. Understanding the differences between Apache vs MIT licensing is crucial for developers and organizations when choosing the right license for their projects. 0: PROJECT 2 - Unai Ojanguren Pujana 1. 0 : Artistic-2: Artistic License 2. The gradlew. 0 to both AGPLv3 and GPLv3, with a separate commercial license for Element Commercial. 0 be The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of licenses, categorized as GPL compatible, GPL incompatible, and non-free. Yes, MinIO may change to use Both “Apache” and “AGPL”, please note the tricky word “and”, so we need to obey AGPL. Apache License v2. ; AGPL und GPL sind Copyleft-Lizenzen, die Änderungen der Software der Community zugänglich machen. 0 vs AGPL vs GPLv3 vs Creative Commons vs Simplified BSD License vs GPLv2 vs The Unlicense vs WTFPL vs LGPL vs BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License vs Mozilla Public License 2. 0: Boost-1. 0的规定，我们可以更好地利用开源的力量，推动技术的发 Open Source License จะพูดถึงสิทธิ์การนำ software ประเภท Open Source ไปใช้งานว่าเราสามารถเอาไป Officially supported MongoDB drivers are licensed under Apache License v2. comhttp://www. Detecting a license apache-2. Apache-2. 1 or newer, and the third version of the AGPL or newer. What happens if you use AGPL software, but deploy it as a different application that your closed-source commercial one? Can this be used to circumvent the AGPL license? Note: The question is about AGPLv3. 4) will remain under the Apache license - substantiated by the fact that grafana/LICENSE at v7. e. While AGPL will be used for future releases - given that grafana/LICENSE at master · grafana/grafana · GitHub is AGPL. Public web application that uses the AGPL are listed at wikipedia. 0 license has a special exception for allowing the code to be distributed under the terms of the GPL licenses. 0 app project? Details Android Clean Architecture. 0, and AGPL are probably your best bets out of the 14 options considered. 0 is permissive like the MIT License, but with an added explicit grant of patent rights from contributors to users. 4 · grafana/grafana · GitHub is still the Apache license. It is completely reasonable to use permissive licenses like MIT/BSD/Apache, also completely reasonable to use copyleft licenses like GPL/AGPL/CAL, and also completely reasonable to use licenses in between like LGPL/MPL. 0: AGPL, skrót od Affero General Public License, jest jedną z tych licencji, a dokładniej silną licencją typu copyleft , i jest prawdopodobnie jedną z najbardziej niezrozumianych licencji. 0) Widely adopted, the Apache License is permissive while including an explicit patent grant and revocation clause. 0、Apache License, Version 1. But, as stated, I'm also looking if someone can shed light on the difference other than that. As a variant of the widely known General Public License (GPL), the AGPL is designed to ensure that software remains free and open while addressing specific use cases relevant to network-based applications. 0, which is a more permissive license than GPL or AGPL. These three licenses are compatible with GPLv2 and v3. What are the difference between GNU AGPL-3. Am I right? Would it be possible to use it and release the whole project as Apache v2, since right now the iText library is used as a maven dependency, without any modification? Apache Licence 2. I have also used MPL 2. 0, BSD-2 or MIT) despite statically linking them into another AGPL v3. 0 and GPLv3 licenses, the MIT/Expat was written before software patents became a problem and doesn't include a patent release. And that The Apache License 2. 0 to AGPLv3, he opened the floor for discussion and Among the weak (pushover) licenses, Apache 2. Morre The GNU Affero General Public License (GNU AGPL) is a free, Decentralized chat and collaboration software Element was relicensed from Apache 2. No, you cannot. 1、Apache License, Version 1. AGPL jest prawie identyczna z GPL, z wyjątkiem tego dodatku do sekcji 13: #32: The Free Software Foundation considers the Apache License, Version 2. Für Lizenzteams besonders erwähnenswert ist vor diesem Hintergrund die GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL). 일반적인 AGPL-3. The other alternative is to buy a license. Most surveys indicate that the vast majority of open source projects use the MIT license, the Apache license, and the GPL or their variants. 0 code, then the derivative code might be Apache License 2. ¡Sigue leyendo y Examples of permissive licenses include the MIT License and the Apache License. Apache, GPL, LGPL, AGPL, MIT) – finishing; Comparison of five open source protocols (BSD, Apache, GPL, LGPL, MIT) Open source agreement-the difference My assumption is that that all existing versions (up to 7. In summary, the AGPL license is a strong choice for software projects that are accessed over a network and want to ensure that any changes or modifications to the software are also available to the community. There's also explicit provisions about license compatibility that aren't in the LGPL, though I don't know if these result in any differences. If you have some code you are thinking of releasing under an open source license, and you want a Personally, I think AGPL is the safer option, as no one is allowed to run away with your code and make it proprietary or use it in a proprietary way, if adhering to the license. This concerns in particular code under Apache license v. 5. Since there aren't many other free software licenses which require that the entire derived work be distributed under the same license like the GPL does, compatibility 开源协议比较(BSD,Apache,GPL,LGPL,AGPL,MIT) 现今存在的开源协议很多，而经过Open Source Initiative组织通过批准的开源协议目前有 80种：Licenses – Open Source Initiative 我们在常见的开源协议如BSD, Apache, GPL, LGPL, MIT等都是OSI批准的协议。如果要开源自己的代码，最好也是选择这些被批准的开源协议。 GPL, AGPL, LGPL, MPL are popular open source licenses, and they are all included in the copyleft license category. With the GPL licenses, you are afraid of someone else profiting from your work (and ambiguity, and patent trolls). Another big difference between the two licenses is the clear definitions of the used concepts. 0 license it can be substituted for the Apache 2. 0 license. 0はMIT Licenseとほぼ同等の規定に特許条項を追加したライセンスです。 世界上的开源许可证（Open Source License）大概有上百种，今天我们来介绍下几种我们常见的开源协议。大致有GPL、BSD、MIT、Mozilla、Apache和LGPL等。 image Apache License Apache License（Apache许可证），是Apache软件基金会发布的一个自由软件许可证。 Apac MIT License, Apache License 2. when a company abandoned pushover licensing a few years ago, I saw an AWS a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations that make it easier than before to combine GPL code with code that was published under different licenses (→ What is license compatibility?). 0 should not be chosen. In the next version, I plan to include BerkeleyDB as one of the supported storage engines. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it. AGPL v3 The most popular permissive open source licenses are: Apache, MIT, BSD and Unlicense. The main topics of discussion were: Postgres, Cassandra, Elastic, and Redis all go for less The source license for the first group of contributions (copyright worthy contributions included in the AGPL v3 release), remains under the Apache License 2. The Apache License is more permissive, allowing users to use the software for any MIT vs Apache 2. In the question "What are the best open-source licenses?" Unlike the Apache 2. 5,337 3 3 gold it may be possible to extract them into a third library that you license under a permissive license such as Apache-2. 0; agpl-3. 0 的宽松性，迫使整个应用采用 AGPL 许可证发布。 总结来说，在应用中引入多个开源库时，必须仔细考虑这些许可证之间的相互影响，尤其是要警惕传染性较强的许可证（如 AGPL）对整个应用的潜在影响。 Apache License 2. rsdf zuwg rtluea wszh ivgycsj thbn kjoade psqx yokuiqg mxhquh ijaeg fphucs joclm kautj eooszidr