ah ha since their drivers are ASL2, and the program talks to the drivers, not the DB, etc.
on that note, one can build a standalone RavenDB client, license it under ASL, and there you go needing to add a clause about "non commercial use only" On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- 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
