Comment by ethin

Comment by ethin 4 hours ago

Wouldn't that license also violate the AGPL? I mean, it does say, in section 7:

> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying

So, my interpretation is that I am free to license it under the AGPL; there is no "well, we might decide to do that", and I can strip all conditions they place upon me and comply only with the AGPL, and legally there is nothing they can do about it.

KolmogorovComp 3 hours ago

yes, but that's not what happen here. this part of the AGPL is there to avoid people adding more restrictions, but here mattermost is loosening up the restrictions.

> > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions]

Reply View 1 reply

ethin 2 hours ago

I mean... I don't really see how they are. Technically they are but at the same time they aren't, because the set of conditions make the loosening of the AGPL a conditional thing. Which to me sounds like a violation of the AGPL because it's a further restriction: "We will (not) hold the AGPL against you... As long as you do these things..." I... Really don't think the AGPL was written to be... Abused? That way.

Reply View | 0 replies