7 ms·

Can you clarify the license history? It looks like this is formerly Open Source, but now uses a commercial license. I'm not a lawyer, but anyone who prefers Ope

Can you clarify the license history? It looks like this is formerly Open Source, but now uses a commercial license. I'm not a lawyer, but anyone who prefers Open Source software may be able to fork the software at an earlier commit under the earlier terms. Why so many license changes? Given the $1000 per seat license cost, I'm not sure this is a great look. BSD: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/a7a40268effd03d145c742618670ba9b62452b93 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/a7a40268effd03d... GPL: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/1ef76981774d95e3d98067770d015bb12f8b03b3 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/1ef76981774d95e... Commercial: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/fe88bf64b38a311dbf0d603a8abf7f9254a71a53 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/fe88bf64b38a311... MIT: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/c29af3f523a4d1cb4fe3925a3aa48073a637416d https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/c29af3f523a4d1c... Commercial: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/1ddc800fd230c018c08fbcdb59726427cd5e36e4 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/1ddc800fd230c01... AGPL: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/6060cdd29c576d3eeac18f2de05e80e6d73b15a1 https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBox/commit/6060cdd29c576d3...

graderjs 4y ago
> … formerly OSS … Mm, that’s correct. > … I’m not a lawyer … I’m not sure if they can, but i would prevent that if i could. > … why license changes… Ha, you may be right! I don’t know. I guess I was just duped about the other licenses and the types of protections they can offer. I wasn’t informed and, I don’t know, I guess I was just trying to figure out a business model.
- endigma 4y ago
  Probably should have licensed it properly from the get-go then, they can and probably will just use old commits.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Thanks for checking out our project, you're welcome! > Probably should have licensed it properly from the get-go then Haha yeah! > they can and probably will just use old commits I don’t know, maybe. some people might. there’s always gonna be some software piracy. Are you a lawyer?
    - endigma 4y ago
      > Are you a lawyer? No, but I have learned a bit about software licensing to be able to meaningfully engage in making run of Minio, so this is real info. Specifically, most open licenses have a clause like this: (from GPL3) ...and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met ... Which is the bit that means you can't decide after the fact that at this point in time the software was not licensed under GPL3, this is to protect from I guess license-entrapment, which is sort of what you'd like to do. However, even when this irrevocability is unmentioned, there's US precedent[1] that consideration is exchanged in the use of a FOSS license, which TLDRLEGAL means that a license not mentioning irrevocability is likely revocable only for violation of its conditions. More details: [2] 1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=177761825741712... 2: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-licenses-irrevocable-by-default https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-lice...
      - graderjs 4y ago
        > No, but ... Ok, that's cool. > to be able ... run of Minio ... What's Minio? > ... irrevocability ... license-entrapment ... is what you'd like to do ... Hahaha! You are making some provocative accusations there. You really believe they are true? Looks like you are a bully who maybe needs validation of an angry answer, but you probably just innocently misinterpreting, right? The situation is: I want people to use the product. We don't care to litigate them. There's no business model in that.
        endigma 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Not really--because we're not worried about old commits usage; providing a sample fosters innovation in this emerging market. The vast differences between old code, and our Regular and Pro versions means it doesn't impact Pro revenue. Initially releasing under open-source licenses was positive, and we later transitioned to controlled licensing as the product became popular and evolved, enhancing our business model.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Okay, I want to clarify something here: I didn't mean that I would prevent people from using the old versions. Seems some people think that. I thought the guy meant "to use the old licenses on the new code." Reading it again, I see. So, what I actually mean is, "I'm not sure if they can use the old licenses on the new code. But, I would prevent that if I could." Which is totally valid and I would do that--I can do that. It seems somehow the other meaning has created lots of crazy ideas for people, and they've gone on a tangent, which you can see in the sibling thread here. It's not my fault, but I see how I haven't probably made it clear enough there: I'm sorry for not making it clear. Ultimately, I think having those licenses in the past is a silver lining for customers, especially because people can access this old code, and it's not affecting our revenue with Pro or people who want to pay for the standard edition somehow. Because this old code and old licenses do not sync to the latest, don't give access to Pro, and it gives people a chance to have a taste and build on that. It's really just another part of the funnel. And, I think the whole variety of licenses there is sort of a silver lining. So, I don't know where people got the idea that we're against having that or something like this. It's not like that. So, just understand. Thank you!

graderjs 4y ago

> … formerly OSS … Mm, that’s correct. > … I’m not a lawyer … I’m not sure if they can, but i would prevent that if i could. > … why license changes… Ha, you may be right! I don’t know. I guess I was just duped about the other licenses and the types of protections they can offer. I wasn’t informed and, I don’t know, I guess I was just trying to figure out a business model.

endigma 4y ago
Probably should have licensed it properly from the get-go then, they can and probably will just use old commits.
- graderjs 4y ago
  Thanks for checking out our project, you're welcome! > Probably should have licensed it properly from the get-go then Haha yeah! > they can and probably will just use old commits I don’t know, maybe. some people might. there’s always gonna be some software piracy. Are you a lawyer?
  - endigma 4y ago
    > Are you a lawyer? No, but I have learned a bit about software licensing to be able to meaningfully engage in making run of Minio, so this is real info. Specifically, most open licenses have a clause like this: (from GPL3) ...and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met ... Which is the bit that means you can't decide after the fact that at this point in time the software was not licensed under GPL3, this is to protect from I guess license-entrapment, which is sort of what you'd like to do. However, even when this irrevocability is unmentioned, there's US precedent[1] that consideration is exchanged in the use of a FOSS license, which TLDRLEGAL means that a license not mentioning irrevocability is likely revocable only for violation of its conditions. More details: [2] 1: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17776182574171214893&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=177761825741712... 2: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-licenses-irrevocable-by-default https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/are-lice...
    - graderjs 4y ago
      > No, but ... Ok, that's cool. > to be able ... run of Minio ... What's Minio? > ... irrevocability ... license-entrapment ... is what you'd like to do ... Hahaha! You are making some provocative accusations there. You really believe they are true? Looks like you are a bully who maybe needs validation of an angry answer, but you probably just innocently misinterpreting, right? The situation is: I want people to use the product. We don't care to litigate them. There's no business model in that.
      - endigma 4y ago
        [flagged]
- graderjs 4y ago
  Not really--because we're not worried about old commits usage; providing a sample fosters innovation in this emerging market. The vast differences between old code, and our Regular and Pro versions means it doesn't impact Pro revenue. Initially releasing under open-source licenses was positive, and we later transitioned to controlled licensing as the product became popular and evolved, enhancing our business model.
graderjs 4y ago
Okay, I want to clarify something here: I didn't mean that I would prevent people from using the old versions. Seems some people think that. I thought the guy meant "to use the old licenses on the new code." Reading it again, I see. So, what I actually mean is, "I'm not sure if they can use the old licenses on the new code. But, I would prevent that if I could." Which is totally valid and I would do that--I can do that. It seems somehow the other meaning has created lots of crazy ideas for people, and they've gone on a tangent, which you can see in the sibling thread here. It's not my fault, but I see how I haven't probably made it clear enough there: I'm sorry for not making it clear. Ultimately, I think having those licenses in the past is a silver lining for customers, especially because people can access this old code, and it's not affecting our revenue with Pro or people who want to pay for the standard edition somehow. Because this old code and old licenses do not sync to the latest, don't give access to Pro, and it gives people a chance to have a taste and build on that. It's really just another part of the funnel. And, I think the whole variety of licenses there is sort of a silver lining. So, I don't know where people got the idea that we're against having that or something like this. It's not like that. So, just understand. Thank you!