39 ms·

I am using neo4j with an app that I am building, it is GREAT! I'd love to see some of the enterprise features included in the community version (clustering sup

I am using neo4j with an app that I am building, it is GREAT! I'd love to see some of the enterprise features included in the community version (clustering support like in orientdb). Maybe the community will come together and make it happen :) I often read (gloss over) how GPLv3 isn't as good as it may seem, can someone fill me in?

andrewcooke 16y ago
it's a licence, so i am not sure that judgements like "good" and "bad" apply. the gpl means that you can use the library, but whatever you develop that "works with it" must also use the gpl. that means that when you give or sell your software to someone else, you have to grant them the rights that you received when neo4j gave their software to you. in particular, you must give them your source and you cannot restrict (much) what they do with that - they can give away your source for free. one qualification: unlike the agpl, the "works with it" phrase above doesn't extend to client / server on a network. so if you use gpl code on a server, it does not affect clients. this is only a rough summary - read the licence for full details at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [edit: ps this is good news. i can't remember what the original licence was, but it stopped me from using neo4j at some point, and i have also had to warn others at times. this is in the context of web services where i suspect that if people were successful they would be willing to pay to scale out; they just don't want to pay up front if they are going to fail fast. so gpl seems like a great fit.]
- emehrkay 16y ago
  Thank you for explaining that. I will take the time to do a bit more research on various licensing types.
  - andrewcooke 16y ago
    i don't know of anywhere with very good, simple explanations, unfortunately. i think the problem is that (1) if you simplify a licence then you leave something out which could be important and (2) no-one wants the liability involved. on the other hand, people recognise that and the major licences do try to be fairly easy to read. but you do need to just "bite the bullet" and read them through (and think what they mean). this is a good place to start - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html (in particular, see "License[s] that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category for a list of the ones you should focus on) have fun :o/

andrewcooke 16y ago

it's a licence, so i am not sure that judgements like "good" and "bad" apply. the gpl means that you can use the library, but whatever you develop that "works with it" must also use the gpl. that means that when you give or sell your software to someone else, you have to grant them the rights that you received when neo4j gave their software to you. in particular, you must give them your source and you cannot restrict (much) what they do with that - they can give away your source for free. one qualification: unlike the agpl, the "works with it" phrase above doesn't extend to client / server on a network. so if you use gpl code on a server, it does not affect clients. this is only a rough summary - read the licence for full details at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [edit: ps this is good news. i can't remember what the original licence was, but it stopped me from using neo4j at some point, and i have also had to warn others at times. this is in the context of web services where i suspect that if people were successful they would be willing to pay to scale out; they just don't want to pay up front if they are going to fail fast. so gpl seems like a great fit.]

emehrkay 16y ago
Thank you for explaining that. I will take the time to do a bit more research on various licensing types.
- andrewcooke 16y ago
  i don't know of anywhere with very good, simple explanations, unfortunately. i think the problem is that (1) if you simplify a licence then you leave something out which could be important and (2) no-one wants the liability involved. on the other hand, people recognise that and the major licences do try to be fairly easy to read. but you do need to just "bite the bullet" and read them through (and think what they mean). this is a good place to start - http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html (in particular, see "License[s] that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category for a list of the ones you should focus on) have fun :o/