How about a dual license - GPL and MIT ? --krish
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Clint Byrum <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ Assimilation mailing list - Discovery-Driven Monitoring [email protected] http://lists.community.tummy.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/assimilation http://assimmon.org/
