MTK base is not GPL licensed. What you (and everyone else in this thread) needs to do is check if your models are higher index DAEs, because then you will be affected. How to check this is still unclear to me.
Just to be clear, the artifact/output in this case is an executable binary/library.
My understanding is it would be considered a derivative according to AGPL.
Yes. If they can request all the source code of the simulator, then I would need to first ask for permission to use this framework. Furthermore, there will be parts impossible to share due to NDAs. Hence, if this is the case, it will be a no go for me unfortunately.
Above quote from the AGPL is extremely clear:
The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its
content, constitutes a covered work.
The fact whether or not your compiled model was generated using MTK has no bearing on whether it is covered.
It is covered only if it consititutes a covered work due to its content.
I gave several examples how this could be. For example, docstrings for various MTK things. If you redistribute a model, and this model contains copy-righted docstrings / text assets from MTK, then you need to comply with copyright on these docstrings, irregardless of whether you ran MTK and it auto-generated these docstrings from its text assets or whether you never ran MTK and just copied the MTK docstrings (and lawyers must lawyer about the situation if you generated your docstring via LLM that happened to reurgitate the MTK docstrings!).
It does not matter whether the output of the consulting work is software or reports. The only thing that matters is whether the deliverable is derived from MTK or output of MTK.
If you compile your proprietary C code with GCC, then you get software that is output of GCC and GPL demands nothing. If you compile gcc with gcc, then you get software that is both output and derived from GCC and you must compy with GPL. If you compile your proprietary C++ code with GCC, then you get software that is output of GCC and derived work of GNU libstdc++, and thanks to the âruntime exceptionâ GPL demands nothing.
Whether you use or not use MTK to generate your deliverable, or whether your deliverable is software itself, is entirely irrelevant. You must look at your deliverable, and ask: âBy its contentâ, if you had typed this by hand, after having read MTK source code, would it be considered a derived work?
If this hypothetical by-hand process would involve copying significant parts of MTK internals, then the answer is yes. If this hypothetical by-hand process only involves running some algorithm conveniently implemented by MTK on your customers data, then the answer is no.
I think this applies to your case, taken from here â GPL FAQ
In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too? (#WhatCaseIsOutputGPL)
The output of a program is not, in general, covered by the copyright on the code of the program. So the license of the code of the program does not apply to the output, whether you pipe it into a file, make a screenshot, screencast, or video.
The exception would be when the program displays a full screen of text and/or art that comes from the program. Then the copyright on that text and/or art covers the output. Programs that output audio, such as video games, would also fit into this exception.
âŚ
Since you say the users will be only be interacting with the output like documentation and data sheets, the output itself is not GPL unless you are including the code with it.
2 Likes
If you stick the data you generate into an open source database (say PostgreSQL), and then monitor the open source data base with another open source program, say Lazarus, and have Lazarus send out the emails, then if I read this thread correctly, there would be no possibility of infringement, at the cost of additional complexity?
1 Like
Hum, interesting! However, I need to verify if this additional complexity is worthy given the migration cost to MTK.
Indeed, but my understanding from following the thread is that there are only a fraction of users who would need the AGPL tools. So unless you are part of the group that needs to do the high order modeling (as explained by Chris in earlier posts), then the part of MTK you may remain MIT licensed and you have nothing to worry about.
1 Like
@Ronis_BR we can take a look at your current codes, but if itâs related to the controlled ODEs you were doing before, I would be surprised if you needed more than MTKBase.
Nice! Thanks @ChrisRackauckas. Yes, I started to migrate that satellite simulator I presented in JuliaCon. I will check if everything I need is in MTKBase.