3 ms·

We’ve taken our commercial open-source licensing from other larger commercial open-source products. I think it’s fair. The licensing states that you’re allowed

We’ve taken our commercial open-source licensing from other larger commercial open-source products. I think it’s fair. The licensing states that you’re allowed to use Reflio 100% for free, as long as you keep the codebase in a public repository. Otherwise, if you want to use Reflio in a closed repo, you have to obtain a commercial license.

s1k3s 4y ago
> This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used in production, if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the Reflio Subscription Terms available at https://reflio.com/terms https://reflio.com/terms (the “EE Terms”) ... If I don't agree with your enterprise edition terms I have to manually remove that part of the code from my installation. Why don't you just separate them instead?
- mcilroy 4y ago
  I’ll update the terms to be a bit clearer and not exclude any parts of the codebase. I figured since other much larger products have the same terms, then it must be a well practised license type in commercial open-source. I guess not.
ensignavenger 4y ago
Can you clarify, is everything in your repo (https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio) AGPL like it says in the readme, or are there parts of the repo under a different license, as this file seems to imply- https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio/blob/main/apps/reflio/LICENSE https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio/blob/main/apps/reflio/L...? I don't see any license header or anything else that would indicate that some files are under a different license? Second, what license is the Reflio referral tracking script under? It appears that this script should be integrated into the SaaS product itself? Having that script AGPL would be a poison pill that no sane non-AGPL SaaS would swallow.
- mcilroy 4y ago
  Hey thank you for your comment. I took the idea of Reflio’s licensing from other larger commercial open-source products, but I understand now that it’s a bit confusing. The idea was that Reflio is 100% free to self-host in your own public repo. If you wish to make the code private, then you need to purchase a commercial license. That’s how I plan to set up the licensing. I’ll be changing the licensing file and README shortly to reflect this.
  - ensignavenger 4y ago
    Looking at cal.com, which I noticed you said is what you are basing this on, it appears they are 100% AGPL... the other license file in your repo seems to imply that some of your code is not AGPL... but it isn't clear what that might be. The AGPL on everything should accomplish that, and you can just note that commercial licenses are available for those wanting to keep their fork private. But I suggest you license any javascript or client side libraries under a more permissive license, probably MIT or similiar-- because your SaaS customers probably don't want to make their entire SaaS app AGPL (Unless you only want to serve AGPL licensed SaaS customers). I think you use Sentry- look at the way they have their server under a NOT open source-available license, but the client libraries are under a permissive open source license- you can have the server under the AGPL, while using a more permissive library on the client libraries. Beyond that, you should consider that there are many successful open source companies that use more permissive Open Source licenses and many companies that refuse to even consider AGPL licenses software. Personally not a huge fan of the AGPL due to to many uncertainties involved with it. It is your project and you can license it however you want, and I appreciate that you have chosen an Open Source license, even if it is the AGPL. I just want to help you be more clear about the licensing and maybe put some consideration into if the AGPL is really the right license, rather than just following others :) Also, consider that you can state your intent in the readme and that is great- you should- but it is the license that companies look to to decide if they want to use it or not, and generally to determine what they can and can't do
    - ensignavenger 4y ago

s1k3s 4y ago

> This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be used in production, if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to, and are in compliance with, the Reflio Subscription Terms available at https://reflio.com/terms https://reflio.com/terms (the “EE Terms”) ... If I don't agree with your enterprise edition terms I have to manually remove that part of the code from my installation. Why don't you just separate them instead?

mcilroy 4y ago
I’ll update the terms to be a bit clearer and not exclude any parts of the codebase. I figured since other much larger products have the same terms, then it must be a well practised license type in commercial open-source. I guess not.

ensignavenger 4y ago

Can you clarify, is everything in your repo (https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio) AGPL like it says in the readme, or are there parts of the repo under a different license, as this file seems to imply- https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio/blob/main/apps/reflio/LICENSE https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio/blob/main/apps/reflio/L...? I don't see any license header or anything else that would indicate that some files are under a different license? Second, what license is the Reflio referral tracking script under? It appears that this script should be integrated into the SaaS product itself? Having that script AGPL would be a poison pill that no sane non-AGPL SaaS would swallow.

mcilroy 4y ago
Hey thank you for your comment. I took the idea of Reflio’s licensing from other larger commercial open-source products, but I understand now that it’s a bit confusing. The idea was that Reflio is 100% free to self-host in your own public repo. If you wish to make the code private, then you need to purchase a commercial license. That’s how I plan to set up the licensing. I’ll be changing the licensing file and README shortly to reflect this.
- ensignavenger 4y ago
  Looking at cal.com, which I noticed you said is what you are basing this on, it appears they are 100% AGPL... the other license file in your repo seems to imply that some of your code is not AGPL... but it isn't clear what that might be. The AGPL on everything should accomplish that, and you can just note that commercial licenses are available for those wanting to keep their fork private. But I suggest you license any javascript or client side libraries under a more permissive license, probably MIT or similiar-- because your SaaS customers probably don't want to make their entire SaaS app AGPL (Unless you only want to serve AGPL licensed SaaS customers). I think you use Sentry- look at the way they have their server under a NOT open source-available license, but the client libraries are under a permissive open source license- you can have the server under the AGPL, while using a more permissive library on the client libraries. Beyond that, you should consider that there are many successful open source companies that use more permissive Open Source licenses and many companies that refuse to even consider AGPL licenses software. Personally not a huge fan of the AGPL due to to many uncertainties involved with it. It is your project and you can license it however you want, and I appreciate that you have chosen an Open Source license, even if it is the AGPL. I just want to help you be more clear about the licensing and maybe put some consideration into if the AGPL is really the right license, rather than just following others :) Also, consider that you can state your intent in the readme and that is great- you should- but it is the license that companies look to to decide if they want to use it or not, and generally to determine what they can and can't do
  - ensignavenger 4y ago