3 ms·

> The code for all these features is still available to the public so it can be reviewed and inspected, but these features will not be a part of Plausible CE an

by thayne 2y ago

> The code for all these features is still available to the public so it can be reviewed and inspected, but these features will not be a part of Plausible CE and they’ll have a different license. Will the code for these features be in the same repo, or be kept separate? If the former, is it easy to remove them to create a fork that is fully open source? Or does the community edition actually contain proprietary code that is disabled? > if you want to contribute to our codebase in the future as an external contributor, you’ll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) What are the terms of this CLA? Does it mean that Plausible could change the license to something that isn't FOSS in the future?

bayindirh 2y ago
> Does it mean that Plausible could change the license to something that isn't FOSS in the future? Sadly, yes. Edit: However, they might also need this to integrate the contributions back to the managed version, which is not AGPL licensed to begin with.
- thayne 2y ago
  There could probably be a way to word the agreement to ensure the open part remains under the AGPL, such as one of the following: - include in the terms of the CLA that Plausible will never change the license of any part currently licensed as AGPL to another license without the consent of all contributors, or make the CLA conditional on the code modified continuing to be available under the AGPL - limit the license rights of Plausible to very specific uses which wouldn't allow relicensing the entire repo - have the contributor agree to dual license their contribution with a license like the MPL to Plausible, which would allow combining with separate enterprise code, but wouldn't allow them to relicense the source files modified by the contributor. I think the GPL would also work for that, unless Plausible starts distibuting an enterprise self hosted version.

by thayne 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago

> Does it mean that Plausible could change the license to something that isn't FOSS in the future? Sadly, yes. Edit: However, they might also need this to integrate the contributions back to the managed version, which is not AGPL licensed to begin with.

thayne 2y ago
There could probably be a way to word the agreement to ensure the open part remains under the AGPL, such as one of the following: - include in the terms of the CLA that Plausible will never change the license of any part currently licensed as AGPL to another license without the consent of all contributors, or make the CLA conditional on the code modified continuing to be available under the AGPL - limit the license rights of Plausible to very specific uses which wouldn't allow relicensing the entire repo - have the contributor agree to dual license their contribution with a license like the MPL to Plausible, which would allow combining with separate enterprise code, but wouldn't allow them to relicense the source files modified by the contributor. I think the GPL would also work for that, unless Plausible starts distibuting an enterprise self hosted version.