No. MongoDB explicitly said: If you are using a vanilla MongoDB server from either source or binary packages you have NO obligations. You can ignore the rest of this page.
http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing If you are running a modified version of MongoDB, and you want to keep your changes, then yes. <http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Calling a service with either GPL or AGPL code will _not_ affect the > license of the caller > so what's AGPL all about? > > e.g. do places that use MongoDB (MongoHQ and SourceForge come to mind) have > to acquire a commercial license? > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Wenig, Stefan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids commercial >> usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards. you do that and >> call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-) >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: [email protected] [ >> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [ >> [email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) >> >> > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we do >> > that). >> > >> > >> > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you >> decide >> > how >> > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's your >> > work, you >> > decide. >> > >> > >> > Actually no. >> > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if you >> are >> > building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the license. >> > Nothing else would do that. >> >> Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for >> distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the user >> can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode and always >> has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the non-commercial >> remark >> is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a license, >> another person isn't even legally able to download the sourcecode. >> >> Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some people >> believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are >> compatible, >> as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is of >> course a non-issue. >> >> FB >> > > > > -- > Ken Egozi. > http://www.kenegozi.com/blog > http://www.delver.com > http://www.musicglue.com > http://www.castleproject.org > http://www.idcc.co.il - הכנס הקהילתי הראשון למפתחי דוטנט - בואו בהמוניכם >
