Thursday 25 October 2012 3:50:28 pm

Ok thanks for the clarification, wanted to understand the pitfalls myself as I'm not so much involved with licenses.

To sum up: We are not considering AGPL, lets please move the discussion back to the original points if there are more clarifications needed there.

Modified on Thursday 25 October 2012 3:55:48 pm by André R

Thursday 25 October 2012 11:56:32 am

André, as Eric pointed, AGPL is not LGPL, and yes, if you create one extension you are creating a work based on the program, so it needs to be distribushed as AGPL as well.

Steven, this is the main purpose of AGPL, so yes, any visitor can demand the source code for any web site using AGPL code.

Thursday 25 October 2012 9:52:07 am

Quote from André R :

When it comes to the GPLv2 part, we are fully* aware that the license does not force people to share with the community, it only forces sharing to clients during distribution. So hence we would like everyone to instead share all their GPL / open source code with the community out of goodwill, cause there is a large chunk of goodwill from eZ and the community to make sure people get access to eZ Publish in the first place. But maybe more importantly to make sure the community can continue to grow which will benefit everyone involved.

Yes.  I think this is the message that has been lost.

I personally don't think that AGPLv3 is a wise choice for a web CMS as it puts too many constraints on the developers/users.

Yes.  Am I misreading it or does the AGPL imply that any visitor to your website can demand the source code?

You must be logged in to post messages in this topic!