I recall MongoDB was AGPL at one point and the cli...
# randoma
andrew_madonna
07/22/2020, 5:42 PMI recall MongoDB was AGPL at one point and the clients where Apache. I guess a similar question comes up, why could the clients be Apache? Can the same thing be applied to a program calling out a singer tap and target. Taps and targets are run individually the same way a orchestrator runs them.
m
micael_bergeron
07/22/2020, 5:44 PMAgain, this is to protect the moneymaker, i.e. the database server.
If someone was to create a significant improvement to the MongoDB database, but keep it for himself but ends up selling it as a SaaS, then they are against AGPL.
micael_bergeron
07/22/2020, 5:45 PMBecause this new version is AGPL too, and thus the code must be available if it is distributed, and network access is distribution.
a
andrew_madonna
07/22/2020, 5:46 PM@micael_bergeron Yep, and that makes sense to me as far as that’s probably the intent.
m
micael_bergeron
07/22/2020, 5:47 PMI've tried to keep the same intent for the Meltano proposal. If someone wanted to edit/redistribute Meltano, then MIT makes it really easy to do so. If someone wants to edit a Singer component, they are free to do so, but according to the AGPL license.
micael_bergeron
07/22/2020, 5:49 PMOut of reserve I'm no lawyer and who knows if that would hold in a court of law, but I think there would be ways to workaround such a conflict before having to go in court. At least that was the idea.
a
andrew_madonna
07/22/2020, 5:53 PMYeah, I think for us it comes down to 1) The commercial work that incorporates taps/targets helps pay for their development and improvement. We wouldn’t have our open source targets without it. 2) We contribute to other open source taps/targets and Singer tooling, which involves non-AGPL licensing.
It seems like you shouldn’t need a legal degree to write open source software. But it gets complex.