chore: add the AGPL-3.0 LICENSE this repo was missing - #8
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The repo has no LICENSE file at all. That is not a neutral state: with no license, the default is "all rights reserved" - nobody can legally redistribute or modify it, which is a strange footing for a server that is bundled with, and depended on by, an AGPL app. Every other repo in the org is AGPL-3.0-only (feedBack, feedBack-plugin-stem-splitter), and the LICENSE added here is byte-identical to feedBack's. It also matters right now: #4 proposes stamping `org.opencontainers.image.licenses="MIT"` onto the published image. Merging that would have had a public artifact assert a license nobody chose, and one inconsistent with the rest of the project. This settles the question instead - the image now declares `AGPL-3.0-only`, matching the source. Signed-off-by: topkoa <topkoa@gmail.com>
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe project now includes the complete AGPL-3.0-only license text, declares the license in Docker image metadata, and documents its application to the server and calling plugins in the README. ChangesProject licensing
Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Comment |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The repo is unlicensed
feedBack-demucs-serverhas no LICENSE file. GitHub reports its license asnone, while every other repo in the org is AGPL-3.0:feedBackfeedBack-plugin-stem-splitterfeedBack-demucs-serverThat isn't a neutral default. With no license, the legal default is all rights reserved — nobody can redistribute or modify it. That's an odd footing for a server that is bundled with, documented by, and depended on by an AGPL application, and which we now publish as a public container image.
Why now
#4 proposes stamping
org.opencontainers.image.licenses="MIT"onto the image. Merging that would have a public artifact assert a license nobody chose, inconsistent with the rest of the project. Better to settle the question in the source than to have it decided by an image label.What this does
LICENSE— byte-identical tofeedBack's AGPL-3.0 (verified withdiff).org.opencontainers.image.licenses="AGPL-3.0-only"to the Dockerfile, so the published image declares the same license as its source.## Licensesection to the README, worded the same way the app and plugin repos word theirs.No code changes.
Note
I'm not a lawyer and this is a judgment call about project intent, not legal advice — I picked AGPL-3.0-only because it's what every sibling repo uses and because the plugin/app that consume this are AGPL. If the intent was ever for this server to be permissively licensed (it's a standalone service, so that's a coherent position), say so and close this — but then it should be a deliberate MIT/Apache LICENSE file, not an unlicensed repo with an MIT label on the image.
Summary by CodeRabbit