Re:New Redis Clone, Valkey, Has Linux Foundation Support
by exabrial on Thursday March 28, 2024 @10:28PM
(#39859974)
I honestly think EUPL is the best license and takes care of so many issues:
* Free (as in beer) to use
* Free (as in mel gibson) to modify and use for yourself
* If you modify and distribute, you must make source available
* 'Application service provider' counts as a distribution
* No viral clause
Lastly, if you ARE a startup with a valuable product, it may be time to consider simply not starting out as an open source company. Instead, charge a reasonable fee (reasonable meaning: not a monthly recurring fee, or per device fee) and license it like it's IBM in the 2000s (you 'buy' it, not rent it).
> The licence was developed with other open-source licences in mind and specifically authorizes covered works to be re-released under the following licences [...] GPL
Considering the GPL doesn't count "Application Service Providers" as distribution, doesn't this essentially make that point moot?
Other than that, yes it seems to be a good license, and backed by governments so we know what the governments intent it and therefore how they intend to enforce it.
Re:New Redis Clone, Valkey, Has Linux Foundation Support
by patemmschmitz on Monday April 01, 2024 @10:31AM
(#39894538)
GPL doesn't count "Application Service Providers" as distribution, but does not prohibit to do so and to share/publish the combined/modified source code; It is just silent regarding SaaS, meaning that it seems that the GPL does not conflict with the EUPL on these points. And the EUPL (art. 5) compatibility clause states that, applied to a combined derivative, the compatible license will prevail in case there is a conflict with the provisions of the EUPL. When no conflict exists...
* Free (as in beer) to use
* Free (as in mel gibson) to modify and use for yourself
* If you modify and distribute, you must make source available
* 'Application service provider' counts as a distribution
* No viral clause
Lastly, if you ARE a startup with a valuable product, it may be time to consider simply not starting out as an open source company. Instead, charge a reasonable fee (reasonable meaning: not a monthly recurring fee, or per device fee) and license it like it's IBM in the 2000s (you 'buy' it, not rent it).
> The licence was developed with other open-source licences in mind and specifically authorizes covered works to be re-released under the following licences [...] GPL
Considering the GPL doesn't count "Application Service Providers" as distribution, doesn't this essentially make that point moot?
Other than that, yes it seems to be a good license, and backed by governments so we know what the governments intent it and therefore how they intend to enforce it.
More discussion on official post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39853463
[1]: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/leadership