add gplv3 license #7

Merged

frero merged 1 commits from add-license into hovudgren

2026-05-12 11:19:49 +02:00

frero commented

2026-05-12 11:19:35 +02:00

Owner

closes #1

frero added 1 commit 2026-05-12 11:19:40 +02:00

add gplv3 license b8c8d886ab

frero merged commit b8c8d886ab into hovudgren

2026-05-12 11:19:49 +02:00

frero deleted branch add-license

2026-05-12 11:19:49 +02:00

danio commented

2026-05-12 11:41:58 +02:00

Owner

fwiw gplv3 is basically a permissive license for a server side project such as this.

You can use it, but if you wanted something stronger than MIT or BSD-3,
you have to use something like AGPL

fwiw gplv3 is basically a permissive license for a server side project such as this. You can use it, but if you wanted something stronger than MIT or BSD-3, you have to use something like AGPL

frero commented

2026-05-12 12:46:01 +02:00

Author

Owner

what do you mean by stronger? more restrictive than MIT?

danio commented

2026-05-12 20:14:34 +02:00

Owner

Using software through a network does not count as distribution, so effectively the GPL has a hole in it, allowing anyone to take GPLv3 code, make changes to it, and serve it as a service, without the users getting the rights to the software, effectively making it proprietary.

I think originally GPLv3 was supposed to have language covering this, but it was controversial, so they split it up into a different license (AGPL), but made sure this new "restriction" (namely that you must provide code to users even when the program is used over a network), was explicitly allowed as compatible within the GPLv3 text.

MIT -> MPL/LGPL -> GPLv2+ -> GPLv3/GPLv3+ -> AGPL

is the compatability, chain, I guess, anyone can take a work licensed on the left, and license the whole as something to the right but one can never go back.

When we talk about "restrictions" it's just "restrictions on other developers/forks taking away rights from users in the future"

Anyways, the spirit of the GPL is to guarantee rights of users and increase the amount of free software in the world, it's politically kind of anti-developer (or at least, specifically pro-consumer). It is meant to make software that explicitly aligns with and respects users, rather than to extract as much value from them as possible.

MIT is a "I dont care what you do, just dont sue me, here's code, use it if you want" with no other political motive attached. Perhaps just a hope that people will work together and build something better together - from a developer centric view - without actually forcing this legally.

When people choose to use the GPL, they are making a statement that their software was shared freely, and anyone who builds on top of it should share their work the same way.

But when the software is a service that runs over the network, this isn't true, it becomes essentialy the same as MIT, because the binary distribution clause is never hit.

To select the same political standpoint for a network service as gplv3 would classically, you must instead use AGPL.

AGPL is suitable to be used for normal programs as well, and is compatible with the GPL (as we covered earlier), so if you want to give "strong" guarantees of user rights you can just default to AGPL, always.

As a bonus it makes big corporations scared to touch it.

This is the classical free software licensing spiel anyways.

Not that it necessarily matters anymore, with AI being able to steal manipulate, regurgitate, and even fully autonomously clean room reimplement it. Or on the brighter side, normal users being empowered in a larger degree to take control of their own computing tools, even without a large political movement like free software!

Yes, the GPL is a copyleft license, meant to give more rights to users of software, compared to MIT which allows someone to relicense a work, make proprietary changes to it, and then reidsturibute the whole as proprietary software, the GPL makes sure that users always have the right to read, change, and redistribute the work. Using software through a network does not count as distribution, so effectively the GPL has a hole in it, allowing anyone to take GPLv3 code, make changes to it, and serve it as a service, without the users getting the rights to the software, effectively making it proprietary. I think originally GPLv3 was supposed to have language covering this, but it was controversial, so they split it up into a different license (AGPL), but made sure this new "restriction" (namely that you must provide code to users even when the program is used over a network), was explicitly allowed as compatible within the GPLv3 text. MIT -> MPL/LGPL -> GPLv2+ -> GPLv3/GPLv3+ -> AGPL is the compatability, chain, I guess, anyone can take a work licensed on the left, and license the whole as something to the right but one can never go back. When we talk about "restrictions" it's just "restrictions on other developers/forks taking away rights from users in the future" Anyways, the spirit of the GPL is to guarantee rights of users and increase the amount of free software in the world, it's politically kind of anti-developer (or at least, specifically pro-consumer). It is meant to make software that explicitly aligns with and respects users, rather than to extract as much value from them as possible. MIT is a "I dont care what you do, just dont sue me, here's code, use it if you want" with no other political motive attached. Perhaps just a hope that people will work together and build something better together - from a developer centric view - without actually forcing this legally. When people choose to use the GPL, they are making a statement that their software was shared freely, and anyone who builds on top of it should share their work the same way. But when the software is a service that runs over the network, this isn't true, it becomes essentialy the same as MIT, because the binary distribution clause is never hit. To select the same political standpoint for a network service as gplv3 would classically, you must instead use AGPL. AGPL is suitable to be used for normal programs as well, and is compatible with the GPL (as we covered earlier), so if you want to give "strong" guarantees of user rights you can just default to AGPL, always. As a bonus it makes big corporations scared to touch it. This is the classical free software licensing spiel anyways. Not that it necessarily matters anymore, with AI being able to steal manipulate, regurgitate, and even fully autonomously clean room reimplement it. Or on the brighter side, normal users being empowered in a larger degree to take control of their own computing tools, even without a large political movement like free software!