4 ms·
Curious, how’s that sketchy? It’s a commercial open-source product. Look at Cal.com’s licensing - that’s what we based Reflio’s licensing on. I think it’s more
by mcilroy 4y ago
Curious, how’s that sketchy? It’s a commercial open-source product. Look at Cal.com’s licensing - that’s what we based Reflio’s licensing on. I think it’s more than fair.
- matt-p 4y agoI regret the wording, apologies if it comes across negatively, but sometimes you can surprise people if you market as open source and then when reading the licence people find out it's actually more "opensource-ish". As far as I can see it's not AGPL, like Cal.com. It's actually AGPL + Commercial. That's to say if you clone the repo into a private repo but don't make any changes then you have to pay for some magical "licence", AGPL doesn't require that. I'm not sure what achieves beyond AGPL.. but like others mentioned think about MIT licensing the client, and come up with contributor agreements if you're selling the code commercially.
- ezekg 4y agoI wouldn’t recommend MIT for commercial OSS. See Elastic v Amazon. Go AGPLv3 or BSL.