3 ms·

After reading this several times I still don't understand "how [they] did it." Also tried the AGPL description.[1] Can someone confirm: They just licensed it so

by gk1 8y ago

After reading this several times I still don't understand "how [they] did it." Also tried the AGPL description.[1] Can someone confirm: They just licensed it so that commercial use is prohibited without payment? I've worked (and am working) with companies that have an open-source product and a commercial offering built around it. My experience is that it's easy to get _some_ companies to pay you, whether it's for the right license, added features, support, or consultation. But to make any significant revenue you're going to have to work hard to provide a lot more value on top of the open-source option, and you probably don't want it to be "consulting." Then you realize that all your prospective buyers are anchored at "free" and need a lot of convincing (perceived value) to pay for the commercial version. The positioning needs careful consideration. Nobody wants to pay a five- or six-figure license for a slighty-better-than-the-free-version solution. [1] https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-(agpl-3.0) https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-lice...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gmueckl 8y ago
It is more nuanced than that: RavenDB seems OK to use if you have an application that shields its users completely from the database itself. The database server is AGPL, but the client library your application uses is MIT licensed, which is fairly liberal. If you were to directly embed RabenDB in a product, you would have to provide the full source, even if you run it as a service and don't distribute binaries of the software.
- gk1 8y ago
  Therefore, companies pay for a license to avoid having to provide the full source of their application. Is that right?
- aliswe 8y ago
  From what I understood (surveyed this a while ago) RavenDB wants commercial clients to pay. They do this by licensing the free version as agpl. You pay to get another license. Keeping your code agpl as a commercial entity is a kind of loophole in their eyes. So they keep commercial clients out by using agpl. That means they want you to pay even if you build a website that uses a cms that uses ravendb. Even though agpl perhaps would let you get sway with it. Dont think so though.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    As I see it the licensing of RavenDB lets you get away with things like a closed source CMS using the DB for your own use, as long as the database runs as its own process. Not sure of you could sell the CMS binaries without source code, though.
    - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
      You can if you distribute separately and the CMS binaries aren't embedding the DB software. You would ship an installer for the AGPL portion to comply with those terms, and your CMS would use a REST interface to interact with the AGPL-licensed backend
codetrotter 8y ago
> to make any significant revenue you're going to have to work hard to provide a lot more value on top of the open-source option, and you probably don't want it to be "consulting." Why not consulting?
- aliswe 8y ago
  Because as the article says its work intensive

by gk1 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gmueckl 8y ago

It is more nuanced than that: RavenDB seems OK to use if you have an application that shields its users completely from the database itself. The database server is AGPL, but the client library your application uses is MIT licensed, which is fairly liberal. If you were to directly embed RabenDB in a product, you would have to provide the full source, even if you run it as a service and don't distribute binaries of the software.

gk1 8y ago
Therefore, companies pay for a license to avoid having to provide the full source of their application. Is that right?
aliswe 8y ago
From what I understood (surveyed this a while ago) RavenDB wants commercial clients to pay. They do this by licensing the free version as agpl. You pay to get another license. Keeping your code agpl as a commercial entity is a kind of loophole in their eyes. So they keep commercial clients out by using agpl. That means they want you to pay even if you build a website that uses a cms that uses ravendb. Even though agpl perhaps would let you get sway with it. Dont think so though.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  As I see it the licensing of RavenDB lets you get away with things like a closed source CMS using the DB for your own use, as long as the database runs as its own process. Not sure of you could sell the CMS binaries without source code, though.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    You can if you distribute separately and the CMS binaries aren't embedding the DB software. You would ship an installer for the AGPL portion to comply with those terms, and your CMS would use a REST interface to interact with the AGPL-licensed backend

codetrotter 8y ago

> to make any significant revenue you're going to have to work hard to provide a lot more value on top of the open-source option, and you probably don't want it to be "consulting." Why not consulting?

aliswe 8y ago
Because as the article says its work intensive