He took GPLv3 code, which is a copyleft license that requires you share your source code and license your project under the same terms as the code you used. You also can't distribute your project as a binary-only or proprietary software. When pressed, they only released the code for their front end, remaining in violation of GPLv3.
Probably the reason they're moving to a Web offering. They could just take down the binary files and be gpl compliant, this whole thing is so stupid
I think that's what AGPL tries to prevent
Yes, but if the code they took is not AGPL then this loophole still applies
Yes, I meant more that AGPL was created to plug this particular loophole. As in, if it was AGPL, they couldn't do this.
That's true
Although I personally am not a fan of licences this strict, MIT+Apache2.0 seems good enough for me. Of course, that might change with time and precedents like this 😅
He took GPLv3 code, which is a copyleft license that requires you share your source code and license your project under the same terms as the code you used. You also can't distribute your project as a binary-only or proprietary software. When pressed, they only released the code for their front end, remaining in violation of GPLv3.
Probably the reason they're moving to a Web offering. They could just take down the binary files and be gpl compliant, this whole thing is so stupid
I think that's what AGPL tries to prevent
Yes, but if the code they took is not AGPL then this loophole still applies
Yes, I meant more that AGPL was created to plug this particular loophole. As in, if it was AGPL, they couldn't do this.
That's true
Although I personally am not a fan of licences this strict, MIT+Apache2.0 seems good enough for me. Of course, that might change with time and precedents like this 😅