One certainly could, but since RavenDB doesn't have an exception for drivers, that would put you in a bad position.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > ah ha > since their drivers are ASL2, and the program talks to the drivers, not the > DB, etc. > > on that note, one can build a standalone RavenDB client, license it under > ASL, and there you go needing to add a clause about "non commercial use > only" > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> that's interesting, as it's AGPLv3 >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> No. MongoDB explicitly said: >>> If you are using a vanilla MongoDB server from either source or binary >>> packages you have NO obligations. You can ignore the rest of this page. >>> >>> >>> http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing >>> >>> If you are running a modified version of MongoDB, and you want to keep >>> your changes, then yes. >>> <http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing> >>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Ken Egozi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> > Calling a service with either GPL or AGPL code will _not_ affect the >>>> license of the caller >>>> so what's AGPL all about? >>>> >>>> e.g. do places that use MongoDB (MongoHQ and SourceForge come to mind) >>>> have to acquire a commercial license? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Wenig, Stefan <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> You could craft your own license, but a license that forbids commercial >>>>> usage is not a FOSS license by either FSF or OSI standards. you do that >>>>> and >>>>> call your software OSS, you better avoid certain people afterwards ;-) >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>> From: [email protected] [ >>>>> [email protected]] on behalf of Frans Bouma [ >>>>> [email protected]] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 20:28 >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: RE: [nhibernate-development] LGPL v3 for NH3 (?) >>>>> >>>>> > > The AGPL is also the preferred license for dual licensing (we >>>>> do >>>>> > that). >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > any license is suitable for that, you own the code, you >>>>> decide >>>>> > how >>>>> > to license it. You can distribute it under 10 licenses, it's >>>>> your >>>>> > work, you >>>>> > decide. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Actually no. >>>>> > Consider RavenDB as a good example. AGPL pretty much says that if you >>>>> are >>>>> > building commercial apps, you are going to pay for the license. >>>>> > Nothing else would do that. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it would, any piece of text you use as a license for >>>>> distribution and usage of the sourcecode for others which states the >>>>> user >>>>> can only create non-commercial applications with the sourcecode and >>>>> always >>>>> has to disclose full sourcecode will do (actually, the non-commercial >>>>> remark >>>>> is enough). Remember, you own the code and you decide. Without a >>>>> license, >>>>> another person isn't even legally able to download the sourcecode. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I was talking about dual licensing conflicts. Some >>>>> people >>>>> believe the dual licensing can only happen if both licenses are >>>>> compatible, >>>>> as otherwise contributing is problematic. But for code owners, that is >>>>> of >>>>> course a non-issue. >>>>> >>>>> FB >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ken Egozi. >>>> http://www.kenegozi.com/blog >>>> http://www.delver.com >>>> http://www.musicglue.com >>>> http://www.castleproject.org >>>> http://www.idcc.co.il - הכנס הקהילתי הראשון למפתחי דוטנט - בואו >>>> בהמוניכם >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ken Egozi. >> http://www.kenegozi.com/blog >> http://www.delver.com >> http://www.musicglue.com >> http://www.castleproject.org >> http://www.idcc.co.il - הכנס הקהילתי הראשון למפתחי דוטנט - בואו בהמוניכם >> > > > > -- > Ken Egozi. > http://www.kenegozi.com/blog > http://www.delver.com > http://www.musicglue.com > http://www.castleproject.org > http://www.idcc.co.il - הכנס הקהילתי הראשון למפתחי דוטנט - בואו בהמוניכם >
