I don't follow, why would AGPL be a danger for your CI scripts or other works on related topics? I'm not a lawyer, but the AGPL text ( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html ) does not seem to imply that CI scripts or "related topic" works would be affected by opam-builder's use of the AGPL:
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the > source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run > the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those > activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or > general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used > unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the > work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files > associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared > libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically > designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow > between those subprograms and other parts of the work. > This description of "Source code" (to be distributed when you deploy opam-builder on a service) includes "script to control those activities", so you may argue that for example Docker files used to administrate an opam-builder instance would have to be included -- which seems a reasonable degree of invasiveness to me. I see nothing that could affect CI scripts related to opam-repository in general, or your other works in the area: they are not "specifically designed to require" interaction with opam-builder, or are they? And, in any case, any AGPL-related restriction might arguably prevent you from running opam-builder on your own server, but I see even less how they could prevent you from contributing patches to the software itself, intended to take effect on Fabrice's instances -- that's the way I've been considering contribution to opam-builder so far, although others are of course warmly welcome to run their own instances if they want. On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Thomas Gazagnaire <[email protected]> wrote: > > In general I would encourage anyone to help improve opam-builder. We > already have a few suggested features in the issue tracket (for example > Alain Frisch gave feedback tracked in https://github.com/OCamlPro/ > opam-builder/issues/17 ), but ideas for improvements can easily be very > open-ended while the resources to implement those changes seem fairly > scarce, so I think focusing on small things first and actually implementing > them could be very productive. > > Is there any hope to change the license? As a repository maintainer, I > use/maintain/publish a lots of CI scripts and I also work on related > topics, so AGPL make it impossible for me to contribute. > > Best, > Thomas > >
_______________________________________________ Platform mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ocaml.org/listinfo/platform
