About License

[kaushalyap]

I see datpin is license under AGPL. Problem with AGPL is

Permissions of this strongest copyleft license are conditioned on making available complete source code of licensed works and modifications, which include larger works using a licensed work, under the same license.

[Source]

So if a user is using Datpin as a CMS for closed source front-end website, this put Datpin users in uncomfortable position.

Disclaimer : I am not a lawyer

[artpar]

This looks like a valid issue. I will change it to GPL. I guess that would resolve the concern ?

[kaushalyap]

GPL v3 also has the same statement see here. If you desperately want a copyleft license I would suggest LGPL v3 which do not force to disclose the source of large body of work.

If you are okay I would suggest Apache 2.0 which is also used by Kubernetes

[artpar]

Thanks for the information @kaushalyap, LGPL v3 looks like a better choice.

[artpar]

Updated license to LGPL v3

https://github.com/daptin/daptin/blob/master/LICENSE

[kaushalyap]

Thanks for listening!

[kaushalyap]

I recently had conversation on Reddit about AGPL, a commenter said that AGPL do not have any impact on users.
the commenter pointed me to following blog posts

• https://blog.tooljet.com/changing-license-to-agpl/
• https://drewdevault.com/2020/07/27/Anti-AGPL-propaganda.html

[artpar]

Very interesting. Think I should switch back the license to AGPL then.

[kaushalyap]

Ultimately it is your choice!