Hello. Autonomi’s license is GPL 3.0. Does that mean all apps using Autonomi API have to be open-sourced?
Check out the Dev Forum
6 Likes
Pretty sure it does
2 Likes
Not saying it is then only solution, but an interface between the two code bases is sufficient to separate them, I believe. This is why linking exemption became a thing, to avoid chicanery.
In other words, putting say, a REST service between the libraries and the consuming app, is sufficient to seperate the applications. AntTP will facilitate that, if there are concerns.
Iirc, the linking exemption used to be specified though.
3 Likes
What @Traktion says is correct by my understanding. Note that dweb is AGPL which means that even a REST app needs to be GPL.
This is because I wish to support true FOSS ventures and ensure those who build with my code also share back.
5 Likes
Ha! Interesting!
I think we may have found a more fundamental difference between our apps! 
I don’t mind what folks use AntTP for. More the merrier! Ha! If it helps to support new apps and spreads the word, I’m happy!
I hope some kind donations will help me to continue to improve and maintain AntTP in the future though. I have lots of ideas that I need to publish on a roadmap, come to think of it. Documentation keeps being neglected!
5 Likes
But you have to use the same license if you use GPL-licensed software?
2 Likes
I think you can always go more copy left, just not the other way, iirc.
2 Likes
I recall years ago, roughly 10, the licensing decision made was for core components to be GPL, and API/SDK layer to be MIT. That was to allow the network to be used by software with any variation of license, from free, to open-source, to proprietary.
That was a smart balance. If that’s changed that could be a strange regression. Could @dirvine perhaps clarify?
6 Likes