As long as RethinkDB is AGPL most will just stick with postgres.
Is it possible (or likely) to get the creditors of Rethink to change the license?
Is it possible (or likely) to get the creditors of Rethink to change the license?
You've probably heard that the difference between the GPL and the AGPL is whether they apply to access over a network or not; but you seem to have misinterpreted how that works. The GPL says that if you modify GPL-licensed software and distribute compiled binaries to users, you must also distribute the source code under the GPL. The AGPL says the same thing as the GPL, except that making the modified software available over the network is treated the same as distributing the modified software as a compiled binary.
I've read the AGPL license. I disagree with your interpretation.
> The RethinkDB server is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0. The client drivers are licensed under the Apache License v2.0.
> We chose to release the client drivers under the Apache License v2.0 to remove any ambiguity as to the extent of the server license. You do not have to license any software that uses RethinkDB under AGPL, and are free to use any licensing mechanism of your choice.
I think partially that's caused by convoluted and imprecise language in the AGPL. E.g what clause 13) means for something like a database product is pretty much unclear.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html :
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
If someone modify AGPL code, and repackage it, then distribute to clients (AGPL include via network), then they must disclose the source code to clients only.
RethinkDB drivers are in Apache 2.0, which most companies package it in their software and distribute to clients. In this case, the proprietary software need not in AGPL. This is why drivers are in Apache 2.0.
You only concern AGPL when you want modify, repackage it, then distribute it (include via network) to clients WITHOUT disclose source code. If yes, you are in 0.1% of minority that want compete directly with RethinkDB using RethinkDB.
I don't know if this is a sound legal interpretation of the AGPL though. My obvious concern would be that the AGPL extends to the rest of our production code.
Exactly. AGPL was explicitly created to make all clients of the software be bound by its license. To say that the drivers have a different license makes no sense at all.
huh? AGPL puts no requirements on clients of the software. Otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to use IE to connect to AGPL webapps. AGPL puts extra requirements on people using the software on servers.
Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but I would want a lawyer to tell me that before using any AGPL code.
My understanding is that it somewhat extends the concept of "distributing" to providing remote access over a network:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License."
AGPL protects against people making hosted forks of RethinkDB and not sharing the changes they've made back to the community.
That's not the point. If you're even using the software the other software components would also be bound by the AGPL license.
Anything that simply uses the projects APIs is not bound to the same license. If this were not the case, then companies using MongoDB would have to be releasing all their project code, including Google / Ebay / EA / Sage / anyone else listed here: https://www.mongodb.com/who-uses-mongodb
If all these high profile companies are OK with using an AGPL project without turning their projects open source, then I'm sure it's legally fine to do so in practise.
It gives you the right to the source code of the program if you interact with it remotely through a computer network (directly or indirectly). It does not apply to other software(e.g. a client driver) that connects to tne program.
Not fan of MongoDB.
Neo4j (enterprise edition)
https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j
Ghostscript
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_under_the_GNU...