3 ms·
For many of the foundations we've spoken to, we would need to change the license.
by chrisabrams 10y ago
For 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.