6 ms·

Well - I can only say that what MongoDB has is not complete. There are still many holes, and we prefer to avoid them. And of course this doesn't solve the other

Well - I can only say that what MongoDB has is not complete. There are still many holes, and we prefer to avoid them. And of course this doesn't solve the other issue, where developers cannot use AGPL in large enterprises.

yeahforsureman 8y ago
The actual wording of the Commons Clause is very general and ambiguous. I'd be surprised if this didn't continue to cause issues within large enterprises.
cercatrova 8y ago
Couldn't you sell them the commercially licensed version then, if you had the AGPL + commercial dual license?
ccleve 8y ago
But that's kind of the point -- those who live in large enterprises who can't use the AGPL must buy a commercial license. The AGPL is toxic in some places, and its use is a deliberate attempt to nudge people toward a commercial license. Did this not work in your case?
sqrt17 8y ago
> where developers cannot use AGPL in large enterprises developers who cannot use AGPL in large enterprises are probably forbidden to use non-open-source software distributed under a shared-source license that allows no commercial use. A non-charitable reading would be "we want mindshare and adoption from developers in large enterprises who will then buy or software rather than admit that they were unable to understand our terms and assumed our software was liberal open source". To make things more concrete - while GPL allows unrestricted internal use, the horror scenario would be the contractor who is brought in to work on software including GPLd code and who may have right to receiving the source of everything (as a "derived work"). How is CommonsClause-licensed shared source dealing with large enterprises employing contractors for working with their software? Is the contractor in breach of CommonsClause but the large enterprise isn't?
kpcyrd 8y ago
>There are still many holes As somebody who licenses software as AGPL, could you please list those?

yeahforsureman 8y ago

The actual wording of the Commons Clause is very general and ambiguous. I'd be surprised if this didn't continue to cause issues within large enterprises.

cercatrova 8y ago

Couldn't you sell them the commercially licensed version then, if you had the AGPL + commercial dual license?

ccleve 8y ago

But that's kind of the point -- those who live in large enterprises who can't use the AGPL must buy a commercial license. The AGPL is toxic in some places, and its use is a deliberate attempt to nudge people toward a commercial license. Did this not work in your case?

sqrt17 8y ago

> where developers cannot use AGPL in large enterprises developers who cannot use AGPL in large enterprises are probably forbidden to use non-open-source software distributed under a shared-source license that allows no commercial use. A non-charitable reading would be "we want mindshare and adoption from developers in large enterprises who will then buy or software rather than admit that they were unable to understand our terms and assumed our software was liberal open source". To make things more concrete - while GPL allows unrestricted internal use, the horror scenario would be the contractor who is brought in to work on software including GPLd code and who may have right to receiving the source of everything (as a "derived work"). How is CommonsClause-licensed shared source dealing with large enterprises employing contractors for working with their software? Is the contractor in breach of CommonsClause but the large enterprise isn't?

kpcyrd 8y ago

>There are still many holes As somebody who licenses software as AGPL, could you please list those?