4 ms·

Sorry I was under the impression copyleft meant that commercial users must purchase a license and normal users could use it for free. Is this what CockroachBD

Sorry I was under the impression copyleft meant that commercial users must purchase a license and normal users could use it for free. Is this what CockroachBD just did?

mrob 7y ago
From the Open Source Definition[0]: >The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. From the FSF's "What is free software?" page[1]: >A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Licenses like CockroachDB's with restrictions on commercial use are "source available", which is a form of proprietary software. [0] https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
- kemitchell 7y ago
  In my experience advising clients who haven't already spent years reading about open source licenses, those lines confuse more than clarify. The dominant mode of commercial software development is closed. Many commercial firms forbid the use of copyleft software components that might compel licensing choices about company work.
pas 7y ago
They moved from Apache2 (a permissive license) to a no-compete license basically. Copyleft means the license leaves the right-to-copy for the user. But copyleft (AGPL, GPL, LGPL) means that you can't remove the copyleft itself even from the new parts, whereas permissive (Apache, MIT) means that you can. edit: I mixed up weak copyleft and permissive :o
- detaro 7y ago
  Apache and MIT are not copyleft, since you do not need to share your code modifications. weak copyleft would be things like MPL, that limit the modifications you have to share to only parts of the program. CockroachDBs new license isn't even Open Source following the common OSI definition of the term.
- TuringTest 7y ago
  > weak copyleft (Apache, MIT) The term you're looking for is "permissive license". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 7y ago
No, copyleft means anyone can use it for anything they want, commercial or otherwise, but the product and any modifications to it must be made available to others to do whatever they want with it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
seba_dos1 7y ago
That's absolutely not what copyleft means. The concept of copyleft is the core of viral open source licenses like GPL. CockroachDB did something completely opposite - they migrated away from open source licenses.
- theturtletalks 7y ago
  Thank you for clearing that up. I’m going to read more into it.

Sorry I was under the impression copyleft meant that commercial users must purchase a license and normal users could use it for free. Is this what CockroachBD just did?

mrob 7y ago

From the Open Source Definition[0]: >The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. From the FSF's "What is free software?" page[1]: >A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Licenses like CockroachDB's with restrictions on commercial use are "source available", which is a form of proprietary software. [0] https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

kemitchell 7y ago
In my experience advising clients who haven't already spent years reading about open source licenses, those lines confuse more than clarify. The dominant mode of commercial software development is closed. Many commercial firms forbid the use of copyleft software components that might compel licensing choices about company work.

pas 7y ago

They moved from Apache2 (a permissive license) to a no-compete license basically. Copyleft means the license leaves the right-to-copy for the user. But copyleft (AGPL, GPL, LGPL) means that you can't remove the copyleft itself even from the new parts, whereas permissive (Apache, MIT) means that you can. edit: I mixed up weak copyleft and permissive :o

detaro 7y ago
Apache and MIT are not copyleft, since you do not need to share your code modifications. weak copyleft would be things like MPL, that limit the modifications you have to share to only parts of the program. CockroachDBs new license isn't even Open Source following the common OSI definition of the term.
TuringTest 7y ago
> weak copyleft (Apache, MIT) The term you're looking for is "permissive license". [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 7y ago

No, copyleft means anyone can use it for anything they want, commercial or otherwise, but the product and any modifications to it must be made available to others to do whatever they want with it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

seba_dos1 7y ago

That's absolutely not what copyleft means. The concept of copyleft is the core of viral open source licenses like GPL. CockroachDB did something completely opposite - they migrated away from open source licenses.

theturtletalks 7y ago
Thank you for clearing that up. I’m going to read more into it.