KnowledgeHives Open Source License

Sebastian Kruk sebastian.kruk at
Tue Sep 2 15:19:32 UTC 2008

Hi Bruce,

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.
>   Thanks
>   Bruce
> 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,
>> Best,
>> Sebastian Kruk

More information about the License-review mailing list