On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Jason Slagle wrote: > > 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.
I wouldn't have a community edition and a commercial edition. First, all contributions would be guaranteed to be open source, so I could never take someone's open contribution and only include it in a commercial product. Second, I might have commercial add-ons, but one of my main reasons for thinking about this is that I adamantly don't want to get into a situation where there's anything like a commercial edition. That being said, I don't want to rule out the possibility of some commercial add-ons that would only be useful in large or peculiar environments. Not opening up these could never be said to cripple the main project since most people would never use them anyway. > > It can be done - I think mysql for instance does it fairly > successfully. > It's just considerably trickier from a contribution standpoint. They've basically set the standard, and I'd largely follow them. I had a conversation with their former CEO about exactly this, and his arguments were a big part of what got me thinking this way. >>> 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. I see. I'll make sure the final license choice is vetted thoroughly, and I'll do my best to pick something relatively non-controversial. Or something. It's all a pit of snakes, of course. -- Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft! -- Theodore Roosevelt --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
