On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Luke Kanies wrote: >> I feel option number 2 will further limit the number of people >> willing to >> contribute code. Especially if you plan to sell it commercially >> later. >> For instance, at my employer here I could contribute some code (and >> as I >> bone up on Ruby I may even attempt to, even if it's only some types >> and >> stuff at first). However, it gets a lot stickier contributing back >> if the >> I'm contributing code that you may be selling. Conflict and all. > > Can you elaborate on what you think the problems will be? > > I don't see how a conflict could develop.
Sure.. While $employer doesn't necessarily mind me contributing code to open source projects (As well as making donations which is something I'll certainly look at once I finish my rollout), it becomes a lot more harry if I'm working on code on $company's dime that your selling directly as a commercial product. You almost are forced to make a pretty hard split like some of the other projects where you have seperate sites and everything for the "community edition" and the commercial one. It can be done - I think mysql for instance does it fairly successfully. It's just considerably trickier from a contribution standpoint. >> I must admit I'm a fan of the Apache license or a BSD license of some >> sort. It gives you the right to sell it while also remaining open. >> It >> also means that I don't have to have a copyright laywer on staff to >> modify >> your code and use it locally :) > > Well, you wouldn't need a copyright lawyer if you bought a license > from us. I think that's part of the reason for supporting dual > licensing - if this is something that concerns your company, then you > can solve it by paying a bit. If you stay all open source, no problems. > > I'm not saying this is what I would do, but that it is the natural > consequence of choosing a GPL-like license. The AGPL is really scary with it's section 13. It's be even scarier to me if I was a company doing hosting and trying to use your product, because it's a REALLY slipper scope when you deal with things like modules. LGPL is a little better. However, I think AGPL on a project like this that is very "programming" based is really a huge problem. Jason -- Jason Slagle - RHCE /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
