5 ms·
The license for server-side code - the one you would use to create your own cloud - is AGPL. Isn't this license too restrictive for business?.
by blackiron 15y ago
The license for server-side code - the one you would use to create your own cloud - is AGPL. Isn't this license too restrictive for business?.
- hugoroy 15y agoWhy would it be? It's the same as the GPL, only difference is: modified version sources must be available to remote-network-interaction users. I don't see what's restrictive for business.
- mseebach 15y agoIf you go and sell somebody a hosting solution based on Nimbus, you'd need to share your source code. What I'm not sure of, is if you build, say, a photo sharing webapp using Nimbus as the storage back-end, does your webapp become AGPL by linking? I'm fairly certain GPL would require this, but, as per the rationale for AGPL, you don't care about that when you run a webapp. Curiously, if Nimbus adopted the exact S3 API instead of "similar to", it would not constitute linking, as it's using a standard interface.
- justincormack 15y agoAGPL uses the same definition of linking as GPL so communication over a network API to a storage backend is not linking. http://www.quora.com/Does-the-AGPL-extend-the-idea-of-linking-to-include-network-access http://www.quora.com/Does-the-AGPL-extend-the-idea-of-linkin...
- mseebach 15y agoAh, thanks for that. I was under the impression that the bar for linking across the network was rather higher.