license?

[emiltin]

i just read up on the differences between GPL, LGPL, MIT and BSD licenses. http://producingoss.com/en/license-choosing.html

i'm curious (not critical) about the choice of license for OSRM, specifically the choice of LGPL over MIT?

it's relevant to us because we want to make it easy for everyone to build on what we're going, but GPL doesn't allow commercial use. if i understand the differnces correctl, LGPL does allow commercial use, but the license is more complex than MIT.

[DennisOSRM]

i'm curious (not critical) about the choice of license for OSRM,
specifically the choice of LGPL over MIT?

I don't know about the specific differences of LGPL over MIT. OSRM is AGPL.

it's relevant to us because we want to make it easy for everyone to
build on what we're going, but GPL doesn't allow commercial use. if i
understand the differnces correctl, LGPL does allow commercial use,
but the license is more complex than MIT.

AGPL was chosen for OSRM for one reason. Everyone is free to use it,
either commercially or not. But any changes that are made to the source
have to be published again.

[emiltin]

thanks for the answer.
LGPL and AGPL are just to words for the same thing. (Lesser GPL / Affero GPL).
my understandig is that AGPL/LGPL and MIT are essentially similar. they're also combatible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License.

so no problems :-)

[DennisOSRM]

thanks for the answer. LGPL and AGPL are just to words for the same
thing. (Lesser GPL / Affero GPL).

No, in fact they are not. LGPL is freely linkable where AGPL code is
not. Also, running customized LGPL code on a public server does not
imply that the changes have to be open-source where AGPL forces you to
give out all local changes.

my understandig is that AGPL/LGPL and MIT are essentially similar.
they're also combatible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License.

Please consult the virality component of theses licenses. You are right,
that MIT licensed code can be used in an AGPL licensed project, but the
licenses are not exchangable. Escpecially, AGPL is quite viral while MIT
is quite liberal.

so no problems :-)

[emiltin]

it seems that the GPL family of licenses are generally not as free as the BSD and MIT licences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_GPL

wikipedia states that you're not allowed to link AGPL libs from software using a different license.

Copyleft Yes
Linking from code with a different license No (except for GNU GPLv3)

[emiltin]

ok. so AGPL licensed code can be used for all commercial purposes, but any derived work must be open source. i guess this requirement could discourage some companies, but it might be better for the open source community.

[DennisOSRM]

ok. so AGPL licensed code can be used for all commercial purposes,
but any derived work must be open source. i guess this requirement
could discourage some companies, but it might be better for the open
source ommunity.

Right, that was the main idea behind the license. Once, the scripting
engine is running, the scripts will be licensed as MIT (or BSD).
Organizations which choose to use OSRM can use their own extraction
routine but any substantial changes have to open again.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer ;-)

[lafriks]

Does that mean that if OSMR generated route is displayed in some webpage that also the whole webpage code must be made as opensource?

[DennisOSRM]

No, this does not extend to the data this is computed. Changes to AGPL code or other code that is linked against AGPL code has to be published under the same licence.

[lafriks]

does calling web service API also counts as linking?

[DennisOSRM]

does calling web service API also counts as linking?

No, it does not.

[systemed]

I can understand the reasoning and background behind choosing AGPL for OSRM.

Using it for OSRM-Web, however, seems a little strange. AGPL is (of course) intended to address the case where the software is not distributed but is accessed across a network. But since OSRM-Web is largely JavaScript, the code is indeed distributed to the user and there's no need for AGPL's additions over GPL.

The components of OSRM-Web are really good and worth reusing for any non-trivial deployment of OSRM - particularly draggable markers, RoutingDescription etc. It's not clear, however, to what extent the AGPL would affect (say) the design and text of an embedding page if these components are used in it. Personally that's reasonably likely to make me want to code an alternative with the same functionality but a more permissive licence, which would be a great shame given the excellent OSRM-Web code.

Would it therefore be possible to consider a switch to LGPL for OSRM-Web?

[DennisOSRM]

@DennisSchiefer

[DennisSchiefer]

I am open to change the license, but as far as I am aware, all previous contributors have to agree with the change - and at the moment I cannot hunt down all of them. According the the authors.md there are by now 30 contributors - mostly translators though.