8 ms·
As a disinterested observer -- I haven't used RethinkDB and have no stake in it -- I think you're probably right. I am familiar with my BigCo's approval proces
by ScottBurson 10y ago
As a disinterested observer -- I haven't used RethinkDB and have no stake in it -- I think you're probably right. I am familiar with my BigCo's approval process for open source components used in our products, and I know that the AGPL is a non-starter.
- ScottBurson 10y agoI should have added: the LGPL is fine; we use lots of LGPL components. The LGPL tends to be my choice for my personal projects as well. I think it strikes a good balance, allowing use in products, but requiring users who improve the component itself to contribute those changes back.
- icebraining 10y agoWell, be happy while your users don't discover that the (L)GPL doesn't actually require them to contribute back.
- ScottBurson 10y agoPlease explain?
- icebraining 10y agoThe GPL licenses are purely pay-it-forward. They only have to provide a copy to their users. For example, the vast majority of the code I write is AGPL-licensed (derived from an AGPL licensed work by a third-party), yet you won't find a copy of it on the Internet. That's because we only have to provide that source to our customers, and while it's fully within their rights, they have no inclination to share it with anyone.
- ScottBurson 10y agoOh, good point. I guess I've always conflated making the source available to one's customers with contributing it back, but you're right, these are not necessarily the same thing.
- michaelmrose 10y agoCouldn't they just publicly ask any customer to privately provide them with a copy? Failing that couldn't upstream as easily purchase a single license?
- adambrenecki 10y agoI kind of wish there was a ALGPL; a license that works like the AGPL in terms of access over a network being considered use, but could be used unmodified as a library in non-GPL-compatible software like LGPL libraries can. Sadly, I doubt the FSF will ever write such a license, given how they discourage use of even the LGPL unless absolutely necessary.
- icebraining 10y agoCan you provide an useful case for that? I'm struggling to find an example.
- flukus 10y agoThe use case is when you want any and all modifications to be contributed back but not force anyone using the library to open source whatever is using it.
- icebraining 10y agoIsn't that the LGPL? I'm struggling to see how the network part would enter into it.
- flukus 10y agoIf the make a modified version and use it in a web app then they are under no obligation to release the changes with the lgpl but with agpl the would be.
- icebraining 10y agoSo if you used a library in a webapp, you'd have to release the changes to that library to your users, but not the rest of the app? Ok, that makes sense.
- Thrillington 10y agoThe GPLs (excepting AGPL) only require release of source code if it is distributed outside the company/person modifying it. It comes from a pre-networked time when most software required distribution to be useful. Setting up a web service with GPL code doesn't meet the bar for distribution, so that situation does not require the code to be made available. That's what the AGPL addresses, network use triggers the requirement to make the code available.
- webmaven 10y agoJust as the LGPL use-case can be covered with the GPL + an exception (and many other related use-cases like plugins need exceptions anyway), the use-case of a hypothetical ALGPL can be covered with the AGPL + an exception.
- abecedarius 10y agoWhy wouldn't BigCo offer to buy rights under a different license? I'm an outsider to this kind of deal, but it seems to me like a good way for both parties to get something they want -- open source projects being often short of funding. The obvious case where that wouldn't work is a project like Linux with many contributors and no copyright assignment. But others like Clojure organize themselves differently.
- justincormack 10y agoIn this case, reviving rethinkdb, the developers will not be the rights holders, so will be unable to offer rights under a different license.