
RhodeCode Goes Open Source - zepolen
https://rhodecode.com/blog/113/rhodecode-goes-open-source-unified-security-for-git-svn-mercurial
======
stephenr
I can't read a lot easily on my phone, but two observations:

A) they don't name the license they're using and I don't recognise it. They
claim it's open source but the wordage I saw references lots of "personal use"
"no reverse engineering" "no redistributing without explicit permission".

B) their faq and comparison pages are inconsistent - faq says ldap/oauth is in
both editions, comparison page says those features are enterprise only.

~~~
ergo14
The license is AGPLv3,

you can find its full text here along with the source code:
[https://code.rhodecode.com/rhodecode-enterprise-
ce/files/946...](https://code.rhodecode.com/rhodecode-enterprise-
ce/files/94668ab40cfac92d886c4d66af9743df0f4531d0/LICENSE.txt)

~~~
stephenr
So yet again the FAQ has conflicting information:
[https://rhodecode.com/faq#communitylicense](https://rhodecode.com/faq#communitylicense)

Being AGPL means my interest in this is now extinguished anyway, but the
information on the site doesn't inspire confidence either.

~~~
marcinkuzminski
Mind sharing why AGPL is not a good fit for you ?

~~~
stephenr
I think this is a decent summary. [http://stu.mp/2010/02/why-i-hate-the-
agpl.html](http://stu.mp/2010/02/why-i-hate-the-agpl.html)

~~~
ergo14
This is interesting, especially this part:

> you must also publicly release any code that connects to an AGPL piece of
> software over a network. I fear the day that an HTTP server is built using
> AGPL. Think about it.

I don't think this is true, which part of the AGPL license implies that? It is
my understanding that AGPL means that even if you don't redistribute the
software with that license - you still need to put the sources online. Nothing
about interaction of 3rd part software.

After all database servers are released under AGPL - like mongoDB among the
popular ones.

------
adamkruszewski
RhodeCode was already Open Source once and it then went "closed source"[1].
That event resulted in creating a truly Open Source fork called Kallithea[2]
(GPLv3) held under Software Freedom Conservancy[3] umbrela.

I wonder if they tried to cooperate with SFC, as it seems they have choosen an
Open Source license incompatible with Kallithea (AGPL vs GPL3)? Would those
two projects try to work together?

There is not much choice if you need Mercurial self-hosting unfortunatelly, so
this move is much appreciated.

[1] [http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-
kallithea.html](http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2014/07/15/why-kallithea.html) [2]
[https://kallithea-scm.org/](https://kallithea-scm.org/) [3]
[https://sfconservancy.org/](https://sfconservancy.org/)

~~~
marcinkuzminski
Hi Adam,

We're in constant contact with SFC, we also talked to Bradley about OpenSource
RhodeCode.

We picked AGPL since this is what we believed would be the best option for us.
RhodeCode 4.X is totally different project now, and as for Kallithea, we will
see how this works out. We're of course open to cooperate with other projects.

