3 ms·

So I see the networking portions of the code are Free Software - that's great. How are people expected to use it if their use does not fall under "non-commercia

So I see the networking portions of the code are Free Software - that's great. How are people expected to use it if their use does not fall under "non-commercial use" as defined in the client license? Do you expect people to write their own clients for commercial use, or do you offer commercial licenses?

pronkin 3y ago
For non-commercial use, you're prohibited from selling it, but using it within your organization is permitted
- mbreese 3y ago
  You do realize this also means that a for-profit company can’t use the software at all, right? Unmodified, modified, whatever. I don’t think that was your intent, but that’s exactly how it reads. Or maybe that is your intent?
pronkin 3y ago
The idea if you want to sell clients, you need to get a permission form our association.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  Why not use the GPL?
  - pronkin 3y ago
    Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services, we needed to incorporate the concept of a network into the license. We crafted the license with that consideration in mind
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      > Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services Why do you think the GPL is not compatible with this?
      - mbreese 3y ago
        Exactly… Plus, they can always offer other licenses in addition to the GPL (or really AGPL would be a better fit for their concerns). It’s their software, so they can license it to anyone with whatever terms they want. (Assuming there aren’t outside contributions, but even that can be dealt with)
        Zambyte 3y ago
        > Plus, they can always offer other licenses in addition to the GPL Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. They're clearly offering alternative licenses to the one in the public repository. There is no reason the same tactic couldn't be applied with the GPL.
    - maxloh 3y ago
      You may employed a wrong strategy. To prevent paid sync services, you should license your protocols and data formats in AGPL, which requires derivative work (third-party sync services) to be open sourced. The client app in contrast, should be fine even in permissive licenses.

pronkin 3y ago

For non-commercial use, you're prohibited from selling it, but using it within your organization is permitted

mbreese 3y ago
You do realize this also means that a for-profit company can’t use the software at all, right? Unmodified, modified, whatever. I don’t think that was your intent, but that’s exactly how it reads. Or maybe that is your intent?

pronkin 3y ago

The idea if you want to sell clients, you need to get a permission form our association.

Zambyte 3y ago
Why not use the GPL?
- pronkin 3y ago
  Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services, we needed to incorporate the concept of a network into the license. We crafted the license with that consideration in mind
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > Because we want to provide other organizations with the opportunity to offer paid sync services Why do you think the GPL is not compatible with this?
    - mbreese 3y ago
      Exactly… Plus, they can always offer other licenses in addition to the GPL (or really AGPL would be a better fit for their concerns). It’s their software, so they can license it to anyone with whatever terms they want. (Assuming there aren’t outside contributions, but even that can be dealt with)
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        > Plus, they can always offer other licenses in addition to the GPL Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. They're clearly offering alternative licenses to the one in the public repository. There is no reason the same tactic couldn't be applied with the GPL.
  - maxloh 3y ago
    You may employed a wrong strategy. To prevent paid sync services, you should license your protocols and data formats in AGPL, which requires derivative work (third-party sync services) to be open sourced. The client app in contrast, should be fine even in permissive licenses.