Licensing

[jordankrueger]

The most recent update to Rallly institutes a licensing requirement for more than one user. (Discussion here.)

[nebulon]

Correct, we already released V4 which has that change as a major package release, so it requires manual update approval: https://forum.cloudron.io/post/108054

So far without a license it will show a banner, reminding the users to get a valid license.

[nichu42]

While I can fully understand it, I really don't like the move.

[BrutalBirdie]

@nichu42 said in Licensing:

I really don't like the move.

If enough people agree and dislike what is being done, a fork might be created and maintained just to show the middle finger.
All within the license of AGPL-3.0.
Same what happened with Valkey

[nichu42]

@BrutalBirdie Not a license expert and I don't know about Valkey, but wouldn't AGPL-3.0 allow me to create a soft fork, i.e., forking every new version and remove the license banner? Couldn't even Cloudron do that?

[necrevistonnezr]

Nope: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.de.html

• Sec. 4: „You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.“
• Sec. 5: „d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.“
• Similar language in Sec. 7

[BrutalBirdie]

@necrevistonnezr
Oh yea, you are right!

[nichu42]

I interpret it that you are not allowed to remove the AGPL 3.0 license / copyright notice. Not the payment nag notice.

I know these are no truth-telling toys, but this is what Gemini Pro says:
"- You can fork the project.

• You can remove the payment reminders/nagging feature.
• You can make this modified version available for others to deploy.
  Crucially, you must do so under the terms of the AGPL 3.0, including making the complete source code of your modified version available to those who use or deploy it.

The original author chose the AGPL 3.0, which grants these freedoms. While they can request payment or add reminders in their version, the license itself allows users to modify and share those modifications. Your actions would be a demonstration of the freedoms provided by the license."

[BrutalBirdie]

Since it is all still legal jargon my reaction is always
There is in interesting read tho https://opensource.org/blog/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms-adds-legal-headaches

Neo4j Precedent: A recent court case (Neo4j v. PureThink) suggests licensors (like Rallly's maintainers) might enforce added restrictions (e.g., paid licenses) even if AGPLv3's Section 7 allows licensees to remove "further restrictions." This could complicate removing the nag banner/user limits.

Soooo . . .

---

[andreasdueren]

@BrutalBirdie Gemini says:

Conclusion based purely on this AGPL-3.0 license text:

If the Rallly code that implements the user limit and the nag banner is itself licensed under this AGPL-3.0, then:

• Yes, a user or organization (like Cloudron, if they chose) can legally fork Rallly.
• Yes, they can modify the AGPL-3.0 licensed source code to remove the multi-user licensing check and the associated nag banner. This would be considered removing a "further restriction" as permitted by Section 7.
• They must still comply with all other AGPL-3.0 terms when they distribute or provide network access to their modified version:
  • Clearly state that their version is modified (Section 5a).
  • State that their modified version is released under the AGPL-3.0 (Section 5b).
  • Display "Appropriate Legal Notices" (the AGPL ones, not Rallly's proprietary ones) in the UI (Section 5d).
  • Provide the Corresponding Source of their modified version to users interacting with it over a network (Section 13).
  • Keep original copyright notices and AGPL license information intact.

The Neo4j precedent mentioned in the forum discussion is less relevant here if Rallly is genuinely distributing the entirety of this V4 code (including the restriction mechanism) under this standard, unmodified AGPL-3.0. The Neo4j case involved a license that was AGPLv3 plus a "Commons Clause," which was a significant alteration/addition to the AGPL terms. If Rallly is just using plain AGPL-3.0, then plain AGPL-3.0 rules apply.

In summary: The AGPL-3.0 is designed to prevent exactly this kind of "bait-and-switch" where software is offered as "free" under a strong copyleft license, but then functional restrictions are baked in that users cannot remove. The license explicitly gives users the right to remove such "further restrictions."