Compatible with AGPLv3?

[gd87429]

Thank you for the repo. Is this library compatible with AGPLv3?

[AustinHellerRepo]

I appreciate this repo as well, but it would be great if the license was updated to match most other Rust packages as Apache/MIT.

[ttytm]

Mozilla lists its compatible licenses. AGPLv3 is not included in this list.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/license-policy/#:~:text=Licenses%20Compatible%20with%20the%20MPL&text=Other%20Public%20Domain%20dedications,GPL%20and%20MPL%20dual%20license
But it often depends on context and usage. And depending on the scenario, mixing licenses is also possible, like ffmpeg does. Consulting a lawyer will give you the clearest answer.

[hwittenborn]

Like @tobealive said I don't think the AGPL is compatible.

How are you wanting to use the library? From what I'm reading if you just use it in an open-source application it should be pretty straightfoward to be following the license terms. As long as you aren't using it in a proprietary environment I wouldn't think it'd pose too much of an issue.

@mackwic What are you stances on all of this? Are you strict on keeping with the currently license, or would you be open to allowing a license such as the GPL/AGPL for the crate as well?

[mackwic]

The MPL is indeed not compatible with GPL: https://tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html
So the AGPL is not compatible.

I think a double licencing GPL/MPL for open source work may be the best path forward, what do you think?

To answer @AustinHellerRepo, I am not open to move the licence to Apache/MIT, as I'm not interested to support companies large enough to have licence reviews of their software. This is a small lib, they can recode it themselves or pay us a fee if they really want to lift the open-source terms, which I doubt considering that MPL is more permissive than GPL.