I’m curious how this works with AGPL. Do they not have to release the source of the paid version?
back
3 comments
They have a contributor licence agreement that allows them to relicense incoming contributions, so they can release the paid version under a proprietary licence, if they so wish.
Yea, cla is a massive turn off for contributing. I've made a couple of small PRs but wouldn't do anything more substantial
Their obligation is only to the users who paid for it, and if you host the paid version to serve someone else, the obligation is on you only.
That doesn't mean the code can't get distributed more widely. I guess it's a bet based on the honesty of users.
Wouldn't that source only need to be available to those who purchase the paid version?
> Wouldn't that source only need to be available to those who purchase the paid version?
Yes but I am trying to see if there is a better solution to the red hat freeloader problem. To spell it out, What is to stop Oracle (doesn't make sense but couldn't come up with a more evil name) from purchasing a license and releasing IronPrism or whatever by doing s/PhotoPrism/IronPrism?