Hacker News Reader

Comment by eikenberry | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the issue with using the name? From what I've read there is no trademark, which means no legal baggage with the name.

And the code is Free Software, so there is no requirement to take licensing ownership for the project to continue. It is probably better that they can't as that means it is practically impossible to close source it.

View on HN

They want to change the license.

For many of the foundations we've spoken to, we would need to change the license.

As a member of the TOC of the CNCF, I'm happy to advocate getting RethinkDB in the CNCF now and changing the license later -- I would love to get RethinkDB in the CNCF!

Just curious - why AGPL doesn't fit them? Not implying anything, just wonder about possible cases.

Because AGPL is so highly restrictive that most OSS foundations won't have projects use it - they prefer the far more permissive Apache/MIT/BSD licenses

Yes, I've heard similar things. But they're really generic - that's why I've asked.

I was wondering if there are somewhat more concrete examples. Like... some specific use cases and clauses that conflict with them.

Let's pretend your sponsoring entity makes a security or search appliance (anything from a google mini to a NAT/firewall) - AGPL code shipped on that appliance requires publishing source. Depending on how it's intertwined in the product, that may mean shipping source for the whole product

Apache / MIT / BSD have no such restrictions - Apache httpd is on a ton of appliances for that reason

I'm 100% certain Software Freedom Conservancy would not require a license change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com