5 ms·

>It's less than 400 USD/year for a freelancer... if it's any good it should pay for itself, practically? The problem isn't paying 400 USD/year. This is negligi

>It's less than 400 USD/year for a freelancer... if it's any good it should pay for itself, practically? The problem isn't paying 400 USD/year. This is negligible cost compared to how much it costs to hire a developer. The problem is that software created in such a way wouldn't be widely used for reasons mentioned in one of my other comments.

e12e 12y ago
I can't seem to find that. You mention something about risk -- but I'm not sure which risk that is. As I understand their license page, you need a license per developer. The resulting code you're free to sell under a closed license. If you want to sell work under a closed license, you're covered. If you want to sell it under an open license, you can sell it under the AGPL. Exactly what are you missing from this kind of dual-license?
- solomatov 12y ago
  For example, company decides to change a license, and I need a new developer. What should I do in this case especially if I work for a startup and its only product is created with this technology?
  - e12e 12y ago
    If you already have a project - you have a copy of the code under the old license. Is it really that different from a company changing from a bsd license to closed source? You'll have to negotiate or fork in either case. I do get that there might be a question as to how you could get additional developers under the old license...
    - solomatov 12y ago
      BSD license allows closed source derivative work.
      - e12e 12y ago
        In your example, the company changes the license. So you already have code under one license -- either proprietary if you've bought a license -- or under BSD. When the company owning the project decides to re-license -- you still have code under the old license. Either commercial or BSD. Right?
        solomatov 12y ago
        If it's a BSD license everything is great. If it's AGPL, which is the case for the company which we are discussing, I can't do anything without disclosing source code.
        e12e 12y ago
        We're discussing how to do a commercial project. If you want to do a commercial project in this case, that means buying a commercial license. If it's BSD, you can also do a commercial project. If the company changes it license from commercial (to some more expensive commercial license?) -- you still have a copy of the code under the previous commercial license. If the company changes the license from BSD to a commercial license (or the AGPL or whatever) -- you still have a copy of the code under the BSD license. If you choose to not buy a commercial license, your commercial project in this case will have to be under the AGPL, and you can sell your products, but you also have to promise your users that you will provide a copy of the source on request. I think we both understand the demands of the AGPL, and it's not readily compatible with a closed source model. But you took the example of "what if the company changes the license" -- and if you were already doing a closed source project, that would mean you were not dealing with the AGPL, but the commercial license. So again, I ask, how would the BSD protect you from that risk? Upstream is still free to change the license of future releases...?
- hobs 12y ago
  I think he is trying to say he is going to miss a vibrant OSS community due to the perceived encumbrance. That's just my take.

e12e 12y ago

I can't seem to find that. You mention something about risk -- but I'm not sure which risk that is. As I understand their license page, you need a license per developer. The resulting code you're free to sell under a closed license. If you want to sell work under a closed license, you're covered. If you want to sell it under an open license, you can sell it under the AGPL. Exactly what are you missing from this kind of dual-license?

solomatov 12y ago
For example, company decides to change a license, and I need a new developer. What should I do in this case especially if I work for a startup and its only product is created with this technology?
- e12e 12y ago
  If you already have a project - you have a copy of the code under the old license. Is it really that different from a company changing from a bsd license to closed source? You'll have to negotiate or fork in either case. I do get that there might be a question as to how you could get additional developers under the old license...
  - solomatov 12y ago
    BSD license allows closed source derivative work.
    - e12e 12y ago
      In your example, the company changes the license. So you already have code under one license -- either proprietary if you've bought a license -- or under BSD. When the company owning the project decides to re-license -- you still have code under the old license. Either commercial or BSD. Right?
      - solomatov 12y ago
        If it's a BSD license everything is great. If it's AGPL, which is the case for the company which we are discussing, I can't do anything without disclosing source code.
        e12e 12y ago
        We're discussing how to do a commercial project. If you want to do a commercial project in this case, that means buying a commercial license. If it's BSD, you can also do a commercial project. If the company changes it license from commercial (to some more expensive commercial license?) -- you still have a copy of the code under the previous commercial license. If the company changes the license from BSD to a commercial license (or the AGPL or whatever) -- you still have a copy of the code under the BSD license. If you choose to not buy a commercial license, your commercial project in this case will have to be under the AGPL, and you can sell your products, but you also have to promise your users that you will provide a copy of the source on request. I think we both understand the demands of the AGPL, and it's not readily compatible with a closed source model. But you took the example of "what if the company changes the license" -- and if you were already doing a closed source project, that would mean you were not dealing with the AGPL, but the commercial license. So again, I ask, how would the BSD protect you from that risk? Upstream is still free to change the license of future releases...?
hobs 12y ago
I think he is trying to say he is going to miss a vibrant OSS community due to the perceived encumbrance. That's just my take.