5 ms·

If this is supposed to be used in production as open source, then I am a little surprised that it's under AGPL 3.0, especially given there's no mention of comme

• blipvert 3y ago
  Unless you were using a modified version without making your changes available, why would this be a problem?
  • paulryanrogers 3y ago
    AGPL is viral, requiring you open source of all source involved in serving network clients, not only this AGPL software itself. It's meant to close the serve-over-the-network loophole of the GPL.
    • dijit 3y ago
      thats only true if you use the code in a serving application. If the SDK to connect is GPL and the backend service itself (never exposed to a user) is AGPL then you're fine.
    • heng4fun 3y ago
      I like the AGPL. The intent of AGPL is to encourage openness and collaboration, not to restrict or burden software developers. Many great projects choose this AGPL.
• mdaniel 3y ago
  Depending on one's needs and interests, they changed it from Apache 2 a few months ago: https://github.com/apecloud/kubeblocks/blob/5ba9b39716940cd75859ee443b4b0602ff828d9e/LICENSE https://github.com/apecloud/kubeblocks/blob/5ba9b39716940cd7... I didn't dig into the changes to see if there's anything super interesting that happened between then and now It really, really jams me up that the GitHub license thing is so stupid that when looking at a file containing the Apache 2 license it continues to say AGPL right across the top of that file. It's so misleading. Their license sniffer always shows $default_branch/LICENSE regardless of what branch (or file) one is looking at