4 ms·
They want to change the license.
by ensignavenger 10y ago
They want to change the license.
- chrisabrams 10y agoFor many of the foundations we've spoken to, we would need to change the license.
- bcantrill 10y agoAs a member of the TOC of the CNCF, I'm happy to advocate getting RethinkDB in the CNCF now and changing the license later -- I would love to get RethinkDB in the CNCF!
- drdaeman 10y agoJust curious - why AGPL doesn't fit them? Not implying anything, just wonder about possible cases.
- jjirsa 10y agoBecause AGPL is so highly restrictive that most OSS foundations won't have projects use it - they prefer the far more permissive Apache/MIT/BSD licenses
- drdaeman 10y agoYes, I've heard similar things. But they're really generic - that's why I've asked. I was wondering if there are somewhat more concrete examples. Like... some specific use cases and clauses that conflict with them.
- jjirsa 10y agoLet's pretend your sponsoring entity makes a security or search appliance (anything from a google mini to a NAT/firewall) - AGPL code shipped on that appliance requires publishing source. Depending on how it's intertwined in the product, that may mean shipping source for the whole product Apache / MIT / BSD have no such restrictions - Apache httpd is on a ton of appliances for that reason
- mlinksva 10y agoI'm 100% certain Software Freedom Conservancy would not require a license change.