Bug #20827
Updated by Peter Amstutz 10 months ago
The install templates are intended to be copied into a customer's own repository and then modified as needed. However, they are currently mostly labeled as AGPL-3.0 (a few are labeled Apache-2.0):
<pre>
# Copyright (C) The Arvados Authors. All rights reserved.
#
# SPDX-License-Identifier: AGPL-3.0
</pre>
These were added by Javier when he originally wrote the installer, presumably copy-pasted from somewhere else to get the license checker to stop complaining. It was not thought through at the time.
Since the intention is for people to be able to copy and modify these files and not have to reveal the changes to others (since it can contain all kinds of secrets and proprietary information) the use of AGPL is not appropriate.
(My understanding is that the AGPL, like the GPL, doesn't require disclosure for changes distributed within an organization, and we're certainly not going to ask anyone to hand over their configuration files, but there's no benefit in any uncertainty).
The other licenses we use are Apache-2.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 (for documentation).
We should either pick one of these, or we should discuss whether we need to adopt a 4th license like BSD for these kinds of code examples (the code cookbook is another one) that are intended for unlimited use with no restrictions.