3 ms·
As I've said above, only OSS projects that create custom builds from source use the AGPL/FLOSS license, the license was added to allow OSS projects to use all o
by mythz 7y ago
As I've said above, only OSS projects that create custom builds from source use the AGPL/FLOSS license, the license was added to allow OSS projects to use all of ServiceStack without needing to pay for a developers license.
All other usages of ServiceStack from its official NuGet packages are only available under its commercial license which only requires a paid developers license for its commercial products that contains free-quota usage restrictions [1]. The rest of ServiceStack, inc. all core and client libraries like ServiceStack.Text, ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script), ServiceStack.Client, etc are all unrestricted libraries that are available to use graits/for free.
[1] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas
- password4321 7y agoSo you are saying the lawyers have to approve the "ServiceStack License Agreement". The probability of this may be within an order of magnitude of likeliness as getting approval for the AGPLv3. https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ -> "License Info" -> https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms
- mythz 7y agoRight they'd approve the commercial license just as they would with every other commercial product they're using. > which is probably in the same order of magnitude of likeliness as the AGPLv3 It's disingenuous to claim the commercial license is the same as the AGPL, the commercial license allows usage in closed-source programs, AGPL does not.
- password4321 7y agoSorry if my wording was confusing... my claim is that the likelihood of a sign-off from the lawyers was similar, not that the licenses were similar. In both cases the license serves as a bump in the road that doesn't need to be there. ScriptSharp seems like an awesome piece of kit.