• 1 Post
  • 34 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • IANAL. I originally interpreted the license.txt as: all of the source code is AGPL (see lines 234-235), some of the source is also Apache 2.0, and the binaries are MIT; plus a trademark notice and contact info for getting a commercial license. After rereading it, my only conclusion is that this is a dumpster fire of a license.txt, and can be reasonably read several different ways.


  • eksb@programming.devtoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldAlternatives to Mattermost
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    At the copyright owner, they are within their rights to release the source code under the AGPL, and also sell it under other licenses. Anyone is free to use the code under the AGPL. Nobody who releases code under an open-source license is obligated to provide binaries.

    As the copyright owner, they are free to use the code along with other non-open-source code (e.g.: SSO integrations) to build a non-free product.







  • My favorite thing is learning things together. My kids express interest in things, and sometimes we do them together. When my first kid got interested in playing an instrument, I picked up the one I had not played in 10+ years, and we (re-)learned together. (At least until they got way better than me.) Other things we have learned together: playing tennis, snowboarding, 3D printing, building hutches for rabbits.