3 ms·
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
by 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 agoTherefore, companies pay for a license to avoid having to provide the full source of their application. Is that right?
- aliswe 8y agoFrom 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 agoAs 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 agoYou 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