Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SpicyLemonZest 132 days ago
It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement that suchandsuch code is licensed under AGPL v3.0.

The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
1 comments
mbauman 132 days ago
Right, the correct way here is to simply grant _everyone_ a license to _everything_ under the terms of the AGPL (or whatever). You can then separately license portions under other terms.

You don't need to note the commercial licensing option in the license itself; it's irrelevant to that grant. You just state that elsewhere.

link