4 ms·
> Dify is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, with the following additional conditions ... I am totally fine with closed-source/commercial licenses, but ple
by jeswin 3y ago
> Dify is licensed under the Apache License 2.0, with the following additional conditions ...
I am totally fine with closed-source/commercial licenses, but please don't do a "Like Apache 2.0 but not really" type of license. It just confuses everyone.
You can pick from SSPL, BSL, Elastic license among others if you don't want to roll out your own.
> 2. As a contributor, you should agree that: a. The producer can adjust the open-source agreement to be more strict or relaxed as deemed necessary.
b. Your contributed code may be used for commercial purposes, including but not limited to its cloud business operations.
This is not very contributor-friendly.
You could consider keeping an open-source core, and extensions for paid features.
- sandGorgon 3y agogenuine question - out of the closed-source/commercial licenses, which ones are the most developer friendly ?
- jeswin 3y agoBy commercial licenses, I meant those written by lawyers specifically for the product. But usually you could just go with something like SSPL - which has sufficient protections for the developer (but not the user).
- ivanhoe 3y ago> This is not very contributor-friendly. You've put it way too politely IMHO. It's a license designed to attract contributors to help build their product for free, but leaves space for them to just re-license the product and sell it when the opportunity arises. It's not like we haven't seen this play already, and it hurts both contributors and users...