I'm curious of the reasoning behind your decision to reimplement SMTP instead of just using Postfix, for example. I run mail servers for an ISP (and myself) and take advantage of a lot of the "advanced" functionality that Postfix has acquired in the last 15 years.

Our protocol implementations use a specific DSL, that generates Opa code which is strongly statically typed with high-level types such as variants/rows. Although we currently lack many features or optimizations, the approach is clean and much easier to certify.

Yes, we are thinking about the following business model for PEPS, which was built for an important account but of which we own the IP.

1. Open source under the AGPL license, so that anyone can host its own instance easily and hopefully we can build a community around the product. 2. Sell support (together with a non-AGPL license for corporations).

OR

1. Open source under the MIT license the current product. 2. Sell a complete packaged solution with add-ons for corporate users.

Any feedback between the two?

Please point out what exactly the different conclusions are to that text.

If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work."

That last part--"derivative work"--is somewhat the rub.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version

The definition of Corresponding Source code is listed earlier in this HN thread.

See, I can also use offensive language to describe a license. Doesn't that make for a nice conversation here on HN?

That said, as we need to make a living, and if we go the MIT way (see comments below), there are high chances that the Exchange support will be a paid extension.