that's interesting, as it's AGPLv3
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> > > -- 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
