KnowledgeHives Open Source License
sebastian.kruk at knowledgehives.com
Tue Sep 2 15:19:32 UTC 2008
thanks for the hints.
In case of derived works - I would be happy to be simply informed.
I was rather thinking along the lines of our business model - where we
host a network of instances of information management service that we
built. The idea is to "ask" people installing our software not to turn
off replication (one or both ways - this is still to be discussed)
code. I have heard that this is how Magnolia is going to open-source
themselves as well.
I was wondering - after re-reading the guidelines for Open Source
licenses - is that at all feasible.
I guess it is not, right?
Would it work if we put this disclaimer (as a separate condition) when
downloading our software?
It would not apply to the code itself, but rather restrict use of our
software to those complying with this rule?
The way I see it - it would be almost dual-license mode: AGPL+(this
condition for using non-commercial, etc) and commercial license.
From what I read AGPL sound really what we need; but it is way to
long for my attention span to process and comprehend :D
On Sep 2, 2008, at 16:04 , Bruce Perens wrote:
> Requiring that the modifications be sent to a specific address has
> been proposed in licenses many times. It presents practical
> problems. If your company goes out of business, or the address
> doesn't work any longer, is the person making modifications still in
> compliance with the license? The one license that was accepted with
> something like this - from Apple, close to 10 years ago - later had
> the feature removed.
> The AGPL would be most practical for this. You can build in a
> command that causes the client to send its own source to whatever
> server it's connected to.
> Sebastian Kruk wrote:
>> If we remove clauses about "immutable code", and only leave clause
>> saying that "by using this software (or any derived version)
>> licensee must agree to contribute gathered information back to the
>> central repository" - would that still be open source - or any
>> clause like that violates with the idea?
>> Thank you,
>> Sebastian Kruk
More information about the License-review