4 ms·

Note the license is similar to AGPL. Don't expect to use it in any production apps, stick with Pocket base for now.

by Onavo 2y ago

max-privatevoid 2y ago
[flagged]
- trailbase 2y ago
  [flagged]
cess11 2y ago
[flagged]
- chrismorgan 2y ago
  From the text of the license: > If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. No wonder FSF criticise it and urges developers not to choose it! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL: > This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the license. Thus, the Open Software License makes it very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development.
  - cess11 2y ago
    I mentioned commercial use where you don't modify the software, not sure why you bring that up. Just put a link to the git repo somewhere in your service, like an about page or whatever, then people can go read the license or make their own copies and so on.
    - chrismorgan 2y ago
      Sorry, I was just tacking it onto a discussion-of-the-license subthread.
  - trailbase 2y ago
    That sounds concerning. Maybe OSL-3 is the wrong license. I am not a lawyer and spend too much time to admit on researching options before settling on OSL-3. My impression was that OSL-3 is roughly AGPL with a linkage exception to account for both use-cases of using it as a stand-alone service or as a rust library. Maybe a dual license would have been more appropriate? TBH, I'm also not sure I fully grasp: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL

Note the license is similar to AGPL. Don't expect to use it in any production apps, stick with Pocket base for now.

by Onavo 2y ago

Note the license is similar to AGPL. Don't expect to use it in any production apps, stick with Pocket base for now.

max-privatevoid 2y ago

[flagged]

trailbase 2y ago
[flagged]

cess11 2y ago

[flagged]

chrismorgan 2y ago
From the text of the license: > If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License. No wonder FSF criticise it and urges developers not to choose it! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL: > This means that distributing OSL software on ordinary FTP sites, sending patches to ordinary mailing lists, or storing the software in an ordinary version control system, is arguably a violation of the license and would subject you to possible termination of the license. Thus, the Open Software License makes it very difficult to develop software using the ordinary tools of free software development.
- cess11 2y ago
  I mentioned commercial use where you don't modify the software, not sure why you bring that up. Just put a link to the git repo somewhere in your service, like an about page or whatever, then people can go read the license or make their own copies and so on.
  - chrismorgan 2y ago
    Sorry, I was just tacking it onto a discussion-of-the-license subthread.
- trailbase 2y ago
  That sounds concerning. Maybe OSL-3 is the wrong license. I am not a lawyer and spend too much time to admit on researching options before settling on OSL-3. My impression was that OSL-3 is roughly AGPL with a linkage exception to account for both use-cases of using it as a stand-alone service or as a rust library. Maybe a dual license would have been more appropriate? TBH, I'm also not sure I fully grasp: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OSL