3 ms·

I said further below that this makes Caddy nonfree, but I was corrected - you can still build Caddy from source, remove the bullshit, and distribute your change

I said further below that this makes Caddy nonfree, but I was corrected - you can still build Caddy from source, remove the bullshit, and distribute your changes and compiled binaries under Apache 2.0. However, after examining the website more I feel the need to write another comment expressing how poorly this is being handled. The website is very misleading - on the download page, it now asks you to pick a license, and says that the "Personal" version is for only personal use and you need to pay for the commercial version. There's no indication until you click through to the full pricing page that the open source version even exists. On that page, you have the same personal/commercial breakdown, also stating that the personal version is strictly for non-commercial use, but with a sidebar mentioning open source. It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are also wasting no time in going after forks[1] to complain about trademark infringement, so if you want to distribute your own patched Caddy builds you can expect to hear from their lawyers. Absolutely devoid of class. This is a really obnoxious change. I was thinking about switching from Nginx to Caddy but this news is nailing that door shut. [1] https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2 https://github.com/WedgeServer/wedge/issues/2

Whitestrake 9y ago
> The authors are also wasting no time in going after forks[1] to complain about trademark infringement, so if you want to distribute your own patched Caddy builds you can expect to hear from their lawyers. Absolutely devoid of class. This in particular doesn't seem fair. Trademark really requires trademark holders to make active efforts to preserve their trademarks as soon as they're aware of potential breaches, or they invite risk. And this is a simple request in the fork's issues page - no lawyers are involved yet, as far as I can tell.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  There's not even a registered trademark, as they stated. And simply distributing a modified version of an open source project under that project's name is absolutely fine and pushing against it is definitely in bad faith. >And this is a simple request in the fork's issues page - no lawyers are involved yet, as far as I can tell. Well, what do you think their next step is if they refuse?
  - Whitestrake 9y ago
    > Well, what do you think their next step is if they refuse? A valid point, and one we both know the answer to - I won't try to argue otherwise. While I think their statement on the issue page was not handled very well, and I would have tried to avoid the implicit threat... Do you think they should have just left it alone without saying anything once they were made aware of it?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      I think they should have waited more than a few minutes to start hassling the fork about it.
      - Whitestrake 9y ago
        Yeah, they could have got away with waiting, maybe even a few days for everything to settle before making contact. But they're here in this thread, paying attention to the discussion, and people have wasted no time in making the fork in the first place. At the very least, I think the "absolutely devoid of class" comment is uncalled for. I don't think it's unreasonable, not even in terms of time frame, even if I disagree with the manner in which it was done.
        lol768 9y ago
        > Yeah, they could have got away with waiting, maybe even a few days for everything to settle before making contact. What frustrated me was that I'd already turned on the issue tracker and created an issue to monitor progress on removing links and references to Caddy.
  - pzb 9y ago
    Unfortunately the "distributing a modified version of an open source project under that project's name" can be problematic from a trademark perspective. This has come up many times before in other projects and led Debian to not use trademarked project names for software. If you are not familiar with the discussions, just search for "IceWeasel".
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  So let's say I fork the project on GitHub, as others have done, and have not modified it. The APL permits redistribution of the source code, of course, so this is permitted. Now, simply by clicking "Fork" -- and doing nothing else (i.e. modifying the source code), I am now violating their trademark? That's bullshit.
TAForObvReasons 9y ago
> It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are absolutely operating in bad faith here. The summary at the top completely omits the case of commercial users building from source, and the language confusion between "use Caddy" vs "use or distribute official Caddy binaries" intentionally tries to confuse the matter. > Remember that building Caddy from source is still subject to the Apache 2.0 license which requires attribution and stating changes. This is incorrect. Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. It is only when you decide to embed it in an on-premises version that you sell to customers (who run it on their infrastructure) does the disclosure requirement kick in.
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices. You don't have to notify users who just access the server over the network, but the statement isn't factually incorrect: Apache 2.0 still applies.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Are you saying that installing the software on your infrastructure or checking the code into source control doesn't constitute redistribution, even when others have access to these? IANAL, but it seems to me that the license requires you to give each recipient appropriate notice, no matter what your relationship with the recipient is. I'm interested why you wouldn't have to take any of the actions listed at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution
JosephLark 9y ago
I wanted to throw in a comment to register a little more than just a +1 to your post. I get the need to monetize, but the way this has been done and the responses by them to the criticism in this thread has soured the project for me. What I really appreciated about Caddy was the lack of friction in getting started with it. This has, IMO, thrown a huge gotcha in the way.

Whitestrake 9y ago

> The authors are also wasting no time in going after forks[1] to complain about trademark infringement, so if you want to distribute your own patched Caddy builds you can expect to hear from their lawyers. Absolutely devoid of class. This in particular doesn't seem fair. Trademark really requires trademark holders to make active efforts to preserve their trademarks as soon as they're aware of potential breaches, or they invite risk. And this is a simple request in the fork's issues page - no lawyers are involved yet, as far as I can tell.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
There's not even a registered trademark, as they stated. And simply distributing a modified version of an open source project under that project's name is absolutely fine and pushing against it is definitely in bad faith. >And this is a simple request in the fork's issues page - no lawyers are involved yet, as far as I can tell. Well, what do you think their next step is if they refuse?
- Whitestrake 9y ago
  > Well, what do you think their next step is if they refuse? A valid point, and one we both know the answer to - I won't try to argue otherwise. While I think their statement on the issue page was not handled very well, and I would have tried to avoid the implicit threat... Do you think they should have just left it alone without saying anything once they were made aware of it?
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    I think they should have waited more than a few minutes to start hassling the fork about it.
    - Whitestrake 9y ago
      Yeah, they could have got away with waiting, maybe even a few days for everything to settle before making contact. But they're here in this thread, paying attention to the discussion, and people have wasted no time in making the fork in the first place. At the very least, I think the "absolutely devoid of class" comment is uncalled for. I don't think it's unreasonable, not even in terms of time frame, even if I disagree with the manner in which it was done.
      - lol768 9y ago
        > Yeah, they could have got away with waiting, maybe even a few days for everything to settle before making contact. What frustrated me was that I'd already turned on the issue tracker and created an issue to monitor progress on removing links and references to Caddy.
- pzb 9y ago
  Unfortunately the "distributing a modified version of an open source project under that project's name" can be problematic from a trademark perspective. This has come up many times before in other projects and led Debian to not use trademarked project names for software. If you are not familiar with the discussions, just search for "IceWeasel".
jlgaddis 9y ago
So let's say I fork the project on GitHub, as others have done, and have not modified it. The APL permits redistribution of the source code, of course, so this is permitted. Now, simply by clicking "Fork" -- and doing nothing else (i.e. modifying the source code), I am now violating their trademark? That's bullshit.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago

> It assumes you understand the Apache 2.0 license and makes no attempt to clarify that businesses can use the open source version. The authors are absolutely operating in bad faith here. The summary at the top completely omits the case of commercial users building from source, and the language confusion between "use Caddy" vs "use or distribute official Caddy binaries" intentionally tries to confuse the matter. > Remember that building Caddy from source is still subject to the Apache 2.0 license which requires attribution and stating changes. This is incorrect. Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. It is only when you decide to embed it in an on-premises version that you sell to customers (who run it on their infrastructure) does the disclosure requirement kick in.

yorwba 9y ago
> Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2. You have to follow the terms of the license whenever you distribute it to someone. Unless you are a single-person shop, that might include employees who have access to the binaries but aren't actually interested in the source. You still have to appropriately disclose changes and keep the attribution notices. You don't have to notify users who just access the server over the network, but the statement isn't factually incorrect: Apache 2.0 still applies.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  Apache 2 license applies, the question is whether attribution and disclosure are required. And the answer is "Building Caddy from source and using it in your infrastructure requires no disclosure according to Apache 2." Disclosure is required when selling on-premises software that includes the project in question
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Are you saying that installing the software on your infrastructure or checking the code into source control doesn't constitute redistribution, even when others have access to these? IANAL, but it seems to me that the license requires you to give each recipient appropriate notice, no matter what your relationship with the recipient is. I'm interested why you wouldn't have to take any of the actions listed at https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#redistribution

JosephLark 9y ago

I wanted to throw in a comment to register a little more than just a +1 to your post. I get the need to monetize, but the way this has been done and the responses by them to the criticism in this thread has soured the project for me. What I really appreciated about Caddy was the lack of friction in getting started with it. This has, IMO, thrown a huge gotcha in the way.