3 ms·

I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause" because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud servi

I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause" because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service. No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive. A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?
  - lozenge 8y ago
    It's incompatible with all open source licences.
  - detaro 8y ago
    For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.
detaro 8y ago
Note that representatives of the Apache Foundation have repeatedly requested to not use this misleading naming scheme, which has seemingly been totally ignored.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Is there a reference for that? That would convince me that it is a bad idea to use that naming scheme then.
  - detaro 8y ago
    a few links: back in may: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomment-415980472 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomme... https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 (also an Apache Board member)

I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause" because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service. No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.

gregwebs 8y ago
Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive. A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?
- lozenge 8y ago
  It's incompatible with all open source licences.
- detaro 8y ago
  For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.

detaro 8y ago

Note that representatives of the Apache Foundation have repeatedly requested to not use this misleading naming scheme, which has seemingly been totally ignored.

gregwebs 8y ago
Is there a reference for that? That would convince me that it is a bad idea to use that naming scheme then.
- detaro 8y ago
  a few links: back in may: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomment-415980472 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomme... https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 (also an Apache Board member)