<beneroth>
but I'm a bit confused, they think AGPL is not clear/strict enough
<beneroth>
I don't see how this license should be clearer in any way
<beneroth>
especially they say "you may embed and redistribute Commons Clause software in a larger product, and you may distribute and even “sell” (which includes offering as a commercial SaaS service) your product."
<beneroth>
I'm not so sure that this is a valid statement when looking at the license text itself...
<beneroth>
aw-, I'm confused about the intended business value (esp. vs. AGPL), and I see no social value
<aw->
yeah it confuses me as well
<aw->
i guess that's no good
<beneroth>
probably not, unless they can at least show a list of lawyers who looked at it (what GNU/FSF is doing)
<beneroth>
and how such stuff works in multiple jurisdictions with highly different understanding/culture of IP is questionable (it is already a concern with FOSS licenses, though they get checked and sometimes validated for that)
<beneroth>
the main point of this license is that nobody can sell the software..
<beneroth>
or so I understand it
<aw->
nobody in the cloud space
<aw->
unless they make changes to it
<aw->
.. something like that
<beneroth>
even then, as long as the "product or service" derives substantially on this piece of software
<beneroth>
however substantially is defined in various jurisdictions
<beneroth>
you may also not sell it as part of an on-premise hardware appliance, as I read it
<aw->
rght
<beneroth>
so if the software gives no "substantial" benefit - why use it at all and risk this clauses
<aw->
ok was just curious what you though about it
<aw->
thanks
<beneroth>
you can use such software internally - but that applies to all FOSS licenses as they all are about distribution, not internal use
<beneroth>
your welcome
<beneroth>
let me know when you found some good license for your products
<aw->
i will
<beneroth>
I recently started with a "permissive" commercial license.. client receives code, right to inspect/edit/whatever, but is not allowed to sell it and not allowed to operate more than X productive instances with it. the license is perpetual.
karswell_ has joined #picolisp
<beneroth>
combined this with a SLA for support and updates, which is subscription based and can be canceled independently
<aw->
oh yeah, very similar to what i'm doing
<beneroth>
I think about releasing that stuff under AGPL eventually, but currently it's in no state for that (years away, probably)
<aw->
in my case, they're even allowed to sell it as long as it's part of the whole software suite as an indivisible element - not sell it standalone or as part of some new random unrelated project
<beneroth>
non-essential code I want to opensource/MIT at next opportunity, but so far no time :-)
<beneroth>
ah okay
<aw->
yeah AGPL.. that's a good choice too
<beneroth>
I don't see what is unclear about it
<beneroth>
every user connecting to it just must have a link to download the source
<beneroth>
not so difficult
<aw->
no
<aw->
that's _only_ if the source is modified
<beneroth>
oh I was not aware of that restriction.. okay :)
<beneroth>
but even then.. nothing hard about a link :-)
<aw->
yeah i could be wrong though
<aw->
ask a lawyer ;)
<beneroth>
the reason for AGPL, and even more this CommonsClause and other similar licenses popping up, is Amazon (and thelike) taking FOSS (mostly DBMS) software, modify it for optimal SaaS usage and sell it like fresh bread without giving back
<beneroth>
as SaaS is not publishing the code, so FOSS license effects never get triggered
<beneroth>
but you cannot really sell a DBMS any more without it being open source (or so the believe), because nobody bases their business on a important piece of code which might be unusable within a few years - with FOSS, you have the tools to keep it running
<beneroth>
that's my understanding of this events, especially around NoSQL-/Distributed-Databases etc.
<aw->
yes correct
<aw->
but i think the real issue which nobody discusses is that people who write OSS something think they NEED to get money for it
<beneroth>
T
<beneroth>
though you need to get money somewhere
<aw->
if they want money, just make it commercial/closed source
<beneroth>
yep
<aw->
from the start
rob_w has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<aw->
but many people start with OSS because they want the users/traction
<aw->
once it becomes popular then they want to make money from it..
<aw->
so they're forced to change licenses (like Redis, MongoDB etc)
<beneroth>
the core of my business (or what I turn it into) is basically a DBMS based on pilDB. which I might like to make into a product eventually, but for now it is just the tool to sell classic individual business software made with it
<beneroth>
and maybe I can create some SaaS product(s) with it eventually, I've got ideas for apps
<aw->
in that case don't make it open source
<beneroth>
aw-, well this is also the same strategy as Google had with chat and android
<aw->
we had this discussion a while back, my suggestion is just keep it closed and "allow" your customers to view/modify the source
<beneroth>
aw-, correct. not before it is established, or open source as AGPL or so.. but the business values comes from the business solutions on top of it, not from the stack
<beneroth>
yes, that is what I'm doing
<beneroth>
you taught me well, gave me profound insights :-)
<aw->
good
<aw->
everything I've made OSS is just because "i dont care to make money from it"
<beneroth>
many shops do FOSS because they hope to get free work resources this way, people improving their stack
<aw->
if I do, great, if not, whatever
<beneroth>
therefore they make a open source company until they got enough features/market capture and then they try EEE to capitalize on it
<aw->
yes, that needs to be done at the start of the project, not only once it becomes "big"
<beneroth>
I'm not interested (yet) in other people adding bugs to my code :-)
<beneroth>
yes
<beneroth>
once it is freed, it remains freee
<beneroth>
without that, the whole endeavor is bullshit from the start
<beneroth>
but well, Google seems to make it work with Android :-)
<aw->
btw off topic
<aw->
do you know of a way to do some kind of RPC in PicoLisp?
<aw->
(over network)
<aw->
i only know of (server) from http.l but that's ... HTTP haha
<aw->
and also nanomsg (i wrote the lib)
<aw->
gotta go, back tmrw. good night!
<beneroth>
ah sorry, was in another chat
<beneroth>
aw-, PLIO is binary picolisp, you can send any kind of pil code, including function calls
<beneroth>
I haven't done RPC in pil over network yet, but Regenaxer used it widely afaik
<beneroth>
similar to (tell), just then over the network, basically. I guess Regenaxer does it the same way as "replica" works: 1) initiate HTTPS-connection to the other server 2) once it arrived at the pil backend, drop HTTP protocol and just send PLIO back and forth
<beneroth>
so you have TLSed TCP-connection, initiated like HTTPS, but then you just keep the connection
<beneroth>
works with httpgate, might not work through normal proxies
<Regenaxer>
yes, btw app/main.l contains an example hook in 'go'
<beneroth>
another way is just establishing a tunnel between the servers with some tunneling tool like e.g. netcat
<beneroth>
Regenaxer, which tunneling tool are you using these days?
<Regenaxer>
Just ssh
<Regenaxer>
with -R and -L iirc
<beneroth>
ah I see
<beneroth>
normal SSH Tunnel then
<beneroth>
wireguard in the new linux version might be a new method to evaluate
<beneroth>
afaik it is already supported in the newest Ubuntu, maybe even so in the 18.04
orivej has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
orivej has joined #picolisp
karswell_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]