Excerpts from Alan Robertson's message of 2012-10-02 11:16:47 -0700: > On 10/02/2012 11:21 AM, Brad Knowles wrote: > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 9:46 AM, Alan Robertson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> As you know, today, we don't have even a complete "basic" version. I'm > >> leaning towards favoring the Neo4j approach of having a basic capability > >> which is available under the GPL, with "enterprise" versions falling > >> under the AGPL. Or I could just make it AGPL starting from today. > > I'm not familiar with AGPL, but I will read up on it. I tend to be more of > > a Berkeley-type license guy, but I know that doesn't necessarily work for > > everyone. That's why I like Creative Commons licensing, where you can > > choose a license that works more or less like Berkeley, or one that works > > more or less like GPL, or whatever. Of course, there may always be certain > > specific things that CC doesn't address. > > > > I will observe that simpler usually works better in the long run than > > "better". And I can tell you that I have already signed the Opscode Chef > > CLA, which I believe is similar to my very quick read of the Neo4j CLA. I > > also encouraged my previous employer to sign the Opscode Chef CCLA > > (Corporate Contributors License Agreement), and you may want to consider > > having a similar CLA/CCLA arrangement. > > Simplified view: The GPL says "if you make changes to the system and > distribute the software outside your organization, they have to be > licensed under the GPL and made available in source form on request. > The AGPL says "if you make changes and distribute the software outside > your organization, or provide a service with the software to people > outside your organization then your changes have to be licensed under > the AGPL and made available in source form on request". > > Regarding the CC licenses - they aren't designed for or tested in the > courts for software. I really like the CC concept, and am happy to > license documentation, etc. under one of the CC licenses. > > In effect, the AGPL is intended to address the SaaS type arrangement - > where a company can make a lot of money off the product, significantly > improve it, and withhold those changes from the community. >
Count me as a +1 for GPLv3, and a suspicious +1 for AGPL. I like the way this license works in principle, but I don't know that it is always used in the appropriate way or quite as enforceable as the GPL. Also it is considered quite toxic by many organizations, who see it as a deal killer to have to expose their exact running code to users. I've heard it described as "shareware for open source" by some. With Assimilation, its hard to say if AGPL is appropriate. The license was specifically created to address web based applications like MediaWiki or WordPress, where service providers will be handling users' data a lot and could in theory abuse their position (see: Facebook) as the trustees of said data. Assimilation will, at some point, have something that external users might connect to such as a web app. For that, AGPL makes sense. But for the nanoprobes and even the centralized collector, I'm not sure AGPL does much to protect users, and it might taint the implementation enough to drive users to other solutions. _______________________________________________ Assimilation mailing list - Discovery-Driven Monitoring [email protected] http://lists.community.tummy.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/assimilation http://assimmon.org/
