That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3.
I see a v4 coming
I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.
Yes, but bad faith exists, and the assumption of good faith is not always appropriate. I don't think that Dgraph is operating in good faith, and the evidence is enough that I am unable to suspend my disbelief. If I were Dgraph and my actions were so severely wrong that people were assuming bad faith, I would want to quickly correct that. But in fact, most of the concerns have gone un-answered.
Well, yes, of you assume the honesty of the person being accused of being deliberately misleading, then that forces you to reject the claim that they are being deliberately misleading, but that is also a prime example of circular reasoning.
I guess I was being too cute in my comment, so I'll switch to frankness. As a total outsider to all this, your and others' assumption of bad faith and willingness to accuse people of outright lies here is very unconvincing and off-putting to me.
I think they're probably just trying to make a living off of software they put a lot of time into creating. It's reasonable to disagree about their approach, but you're uncharitably going further than that.
They claim that Dgraph started with the idea that every startup should be able to have the same level of technology as run by big giants. They started with VC funding in 2016 and their goal was always to make money. That is clearly biggest lie. There is no harm in creating a company for profit but i would appreciate if they were honest.
The only reason Dgraph is open source is to get early adopters and free testers and contribution from community.
It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
>All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
That strictly doesn't prohibit GPLv3 + Commons Clause as an original license, but would seem to make it functionally equivalent to bare GPLv3.
Commons clause means the software works as liberal easy-to-use open source for 99.9% of us AFAIK.
Edit: is->us
Common Clause is — by its own admission — not open source.
I think it is called a strawman.
Edit: as can be seen in my other posts I know it is not open source. As can be seen in their FAQ they know it as well.
Edit 2: attack me -> refute my argument.
> It [sic] this “Open Source”?
> No. [also sic]
> “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.”
Additionally, "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is not an Apache license. I have seen a number of people be confused by this. I hope Apache implements some guidance with regards to trademarks on this matter, mostly so I don't have to keep saying it.
Anyway we should avoid creating this confusion with this new crazy license, commons clause is malicioua in ita attempt to use a well understood term in a way that twista its meaning.