Clarify the specific open source license for PH Free #35
Description
I think we tick all of these boxes and could do MIT for a 'Free' version.
I think APGL is the closest alternative. This would prevent someone forking then competing as you have to carry the license through any modifications. I think it would potentially harm the open source initial adoption in precisely the types of developers we need - as i think many corp developers have repo scanning for licenses (ie Gitlab doe this) that mean they'd have to go through an internal review to even muck about locally.
Since our model isn't profiting from hosting SSPL isn't relevant (if AWS host it and get us inbound interest, perfect).
BSL would be too open and would kill the ability to monetise.
@timgl MIT is my vote for the PH Free edition. Do you agree?
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
No labels
Type
Projects
Milestone
Relationships
Development
No branches or pull requests
Participants
Activity
timgl commentedon Feb 10, 2020
Agree with MIT.
How do we separate free and not-free within the repo? Can we have the code mixed or does it need to be a separate repository/a fork?
jamesefhawkins commentedon Feb 10, 2020
The others just use two separate repositories, so I think that's definitely simplest for now.
timgl commentedon Feb 10, 2020
Ah that's actually going to be super hard -- how do we split out features into a separate repository?
timgl commentedon Feb 10, 2020
Conclusion of chat: we're going to put everything into one repository. We'll license everything under MIT, except for an
enterprise/folder where we'll put any enterprise features.More plugin tests (#35)
add more metrics (#35)
Log PgJobError String (#35)
hook-worker: deny traffic to internal IPs and IPv6 (#35)