Hacker News Reader

AGPL is always scary. If I integrate your CRM code into my tech stack, technically I may need to make my tech open source, per AGPL. Thats dangerous.

View on HN

We are unsure about the right license to use, so this is a great feedback. We had a MIT license one week ago that we know that we cannot hold on long term and we felt we were lying to the community by keeping an MIT license and changing it in one year.

By using AGPL, we feel it's the right level of restriction. It's the license used by Metabase for example (https://github.com/metabase/metabase) that many companies use internally. Obviously, we don't want to restrict people to self-host the CRM for their own needs.

With open source CRM I'd guess there are improvements or derivatives that you'd want to protect under AGPL, but then there are also "configurations" where it's adapted to a user's business and tech as mentioned. Having to release the source for these would be a non-starter for many. It would be nice if there was a way to make a clear distinction between how the two are licensed, though there is some gray area it may be hard to cover, ie when is it a new feature vs a configuration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com