Your answer was about maintaining two different source repositories. My question was about maintaining just one, in Google Code. Perhaps my "Can we just keep one source version (in GC) licensed as AGPL and offer the commercial version elsewhere, keeping the supported binaries on the proprietary server?" was unclear in that I meant the proprietary server would hold ONLY the binaries, not the source.
We have no interest in keeping the source closed. But if someone else is making money from it then we figure they can kick some our way, hence the choice of AGPL rather than Apache licence. Sure, there will be people who ignore this and rip us off. But there are enough good people out there who won't and we are only interested in dealing with the good guys. For this reason the issue tracker on Google code would be the master (and only) issue tracker. We'll cross the contributor licence issue when we get other contributors. For the moment the project is well developed on a local server and the result of this discussion will drive where we publish the source. I think I do need to hear a definitive answer from the Google Code Team as to whether this is legal, after all they police these issues. But I appreciate your answer. R On Dec 19, 4:20 am, Bruno Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > AFAIK, the idea is as follows: > 1- If you provide the source code for the paid version directly on > another repository in the same project as the open source version, you > cannot then say that the code in that new repository to be closed > source... because it's on the open public for everyone to see. You > might try to set a license that refrains users from using the source > code without payment, but you'll sooner or later loose you case in > court. This is why there are so many software licenses out there ;) > > 2- The Issue tracker on the open source project cannot be used for the > paid version, unless the bugs reported there and that get fixed in the > paid version will sooner or later crawl onto the open source > version... but preferably sooner than later, otherwise you're bound to > get repercussions from users and Google. > > 3- The "Contributor License Agreement" is something that is already > done in several open source projects. If the people don't like it, > then they are free to fork the project and abide by the license that > applies to the original project. The fork also has to take into > account trademarks of the original project, since although the source > code is publicly available, doesn't mean that its trademarked name can > be abused by others. > > Final note: I picked up on this thread from your bug > report:http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=6101 > > If you have any more questions, feel free to ask :) > > On Dec 16, 3:24 pm, Roger Parkinson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Referring > > tohttp://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting/browse_thread/thre... > > Does Phillipe have to host hiscommercialsource on his proprietary > > server as well as on Google Code? > > We're thinking of doing much the same but we don't want to have to > > maintain two source copies. > > Can we just keep one source version (in GC) licensed as AGPL and offer > > thecommercialversion > > elsewhere, keeping the supported binaries on the proprietary server? > > Thanks -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Project Hosting on Google Code" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en.
