Hacker News Reader

eeww, AGPL is a big fail here if you want folks to actually use this thing.

Why?

Our intention, with the AGPL, versus the GPL is to close the SaaS loophole, so if you base a service on top of a modified Keyspace, you have to publicize your changes. But you can use it, sell it, distribute it, etc. just as you can with the GPL license.

Also, you can license Keyspace under different terms, ie. under a non-open license, at a reasonable price.

Just keep in mind that if your project is under active development, people already have an incentive to contribute their private patches back to the mainline because it makes it easier to take advantage of other people's improvements. Otherwise they have to deal with managing their own fork.

It's a big leap to try to be the very first to succeed with a dual AGPL/commercial licensed product. Hell, if you did that you'd also be the first AGPL project of any sort to succeed!

It's quite a gamble you're taking with the license, and one fairly orthogonal to your actual project.

You're right if you mean by "orthogonal" that licensing was not a major concern. We needed an open-source license, I looked around and chose the AGPL over the GPL, and that was that. I didn't think it was going to be an issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com