Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The license for server-side code - the one you would use to create your own cloud - is AGPL. Isn't this license too restrictive for business?.



Why would it be? It's the same as the GPL, only difference is: modified version sources must be available to remote-network-interaction users. I don't see what's restrictive for business.


If you go and sell somebody a hosting solution based on Nimbus, you'd need to share your source code.

What I'm not sure of, is if you build, say, a photo sharing webapp using Nimbus as the storage back-end, does your webapp become AGPL by linking? I'm fairly certain GPL would require this, but, as per the rationale for AGPL, you don't care about that when you run a webapp.

Curiously, if Nimbus adopted the exact S3 API instead of "similar to", it would not constitute linking, as it's using a standard interface.


AGPL uses the same definition of linking as GPL so communication over a network API to a storage backend is not linking.

http://www.quora.com/Does-the-AGPL-extend-the-idea-of-linkin...


Ah, thanks for that. I was under the impression that the bar for linking across the network was rather higher.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: