101–110 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just use AGPL; it doesn't actually restrict anything legally, but none of the big cloud providers will touch it.
No companies will touch it either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No companies will touch it either.
Is this a problem for something like OwnCloud? Not everything needs to be acceptable for business use.
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a license agreement , so who are the parties coming to agreement?
If you're not a party to the agreement then isn't possessing the software a copyright violation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently involved in a decison where a company was thinking of reusing code of agpl into proprietary software. The end result was "if you are using the agpl code as an api enfpoint or you are just reusing the code without any modifications, you don't have to share your entire code to customers because if vitality. Vitality would come up if you modify the code. You can just show you are using agpl code in a lice…
Are you sure about that "or"? (" or you are just reusing the code without any modifications ") Afaik due to the virality of GPL, as soon as your proprietary product makes use of a GPL or AGPL library (where "makes use" is my way of saying "links against" in the license parlance), the whole product would need to be distributed under the same (A)GPL license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently involved in a decison where a company was thinking of reusing code of agpl into proprietary software. The end result was "if you are using the agpl code as an api enfpoint or you are just reusing the code without any modifications, you don't have to share your entire code to customers because if vitality. Vitality would come up if you modify the code. You can just show you are using agpl code in a lice…
Are you sure about that "or"? (" or you are just reusing the code without any modifications ") Afaik due to the virality of GPL, as soon as your proprietary product makes use of a GPL or AGPL library (where "makes use" is my way of saying "links against" in the license parlance), the whole product would need to be distributed under the same (A)GPL license.
"arms length communication".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No companies will touch it either.
This is correct ^. Also, why should anyone want to use a crap license that restricts what you can do. As a software engineer those are crap licenses, same as a business owner, why do I want to support creation of some software that will never be a true native cloud service, I'd rather those companies and tech stacks die. The only people who care are startups who can't figure out a business model, and you should not s…
Why would an end user, which a company self-hosting something for their own use is, care about the license that applies to developers? And if their reason is that they might want modify the software to work better for them, 1) why would they not want to contribute that back and 2) I have some scary news for them about any other non-FOSS software they use (surely a lot).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure about that "or"? (" or you are just reusing the code without any modifications ") Afaik due to the virality of GPL, as soon as your proprietary product makes use of a GPL or AGPL library (where "makes use" is my way of saying "links against" in the license parlance), the whole product would need to be distributed under the same (A)GPL license.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#G... "arms length communication".
Note how the "arms length" usage, as described, mentions completely separated software such as a shell and a notepad application.
The separation between a shell and a notepad (i.e. different applications altogether), or a kernel and a compiler (i.e. the base system and an application) seems to me clearer than the separation between an application and a library that it uses (i.e. the library is being used as part of the application in order to fulfill a feature).