Our great sponsors
-
-
beekeeper-studio
Modern and easy to use SQL client for MySQL, Postgres, SQLite, SQL Server, and more. Linux, MacOS, and Windows.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
Hi Peer, to confirm again, anything below is my own non-legal-expert understanding/interpretation.
So the new wording is as follows:
> 1. Clone the repo into a public GitHub repository (or fork https://github.com/calcom/cal.com/fork). If you plan to distribute the code, keep the source code public to comply with AGPLv3. To clone in a private repository, acquire a commercial license)
This does not clarify anything and still (IMO) misrepresents the AGPLv3 on a couple of accounts:
1. I don't see how the AGPLv3 requires me to keep the source code public upon distribution, instead I would need to provide the source code (and adhere to the other terms of the license) to those I distribute to (Including via network use). Sure, if I was to distribute to the public I'd have to then provide sources in some form publicly, but otherwise not. Of course, in a more private scenario, the code could then be made public and shared by one of the users I distribute to.
As an open source project maintainer [1] with a set of proprietary add-ons, I totally understand the project maintainer desire to have a single repository with a single version, single build system, and a single place for issues.
I've considered doing the same thing, but it's all the legal complexity that stops me, doesn't seem worth it.