Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switch Dgraph back to Apache 2.0 #2652

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Oct 11, 2018
Merged

Switch Dgraph back to Apache 2.0 #2652

merged 4 commits into from
Oct 11, 2018

Conversation

manishrjain
Copy link
Contributor

@manishrjain manishrjain commented Oct 10, 2018

While the promise of Commons Clause is a great one, i.e. restricting resale while allowing proprietary usage, its subjective implementation generates a lot of friction for the open source community.

Being an open source developer at heart, I'm glad to be bringing Dgraph back to Apache 2.0 license. It is something that we started off with, but then got lost into the AGPL woods. At the end of the day, Apache license is the gold standard of licenses, and something open source users (i.e. the world) feel very comfortable with. The vision for Dgraph is to bring graph databases mainstream, allowing them to be the primary databases holding the source of truth, and that's only possible if it can be adopted by any company, big or small, without any concerns.

Apache license lets us achieve that vision.

We will be adding proprietary features later on under an enterprise license, but as long as I'm in charge, we're not moving the core away from Apache 2.0 license. This is it.


This change is Reviewable

@danielmai
Copy link
Contributor


contrib/stopwords/scraper.go, line 42 at r1 (raw file):

		 *
		 * This file is available under the Apache License, Version 2.0,
		 * with the Commons Clause restriction.

This needs to be removed.

Copy link
Contributor

@srfrog srfrog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 202 of 204 files at r1.
Reviewable status: 198 of 203 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @srfrog, @manishrjain, and @danielmai)


raftwal/storage_test.go, line 17 at r1 (raw file):

 */

// Copyright 2015 The etcd Authors

dont need this other license here eh?


x/histogram.go, line 16 at r1 (raw file):

 * limitations under the License.
 */
// Copyright 2015 The Cockroach Authors.

this ?

Copy link
Contributor

@srfrog srfrog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 4 of 5 files at r2.
Reviewable status: 201 of 203 files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @srfrog, @manishrjain, and @danielmai)

Copy link
Contributor

@danielmai danielmai left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 203 of 204 files at r1, 1 of 5 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3, 3 of 3 files at r4.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @manishrjain)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@manishrjain manishrjain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @manishrjain)


raftwal/storage_test.go, line 17 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, srfrog (Gus) wrote…

dont need this other license here eh?

We do. Because the file was copied over.


x/histogram.go, line 16 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, srfrog (Gus) wrote…

this ?

Must keep the original license, if the file is copied.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@manishrjain manishrjain left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 3 unresolved discussions (waiting on @danielmai and @srfrog)


contrib/stopwords/scraper.go, line 42 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, danielmai (Daniel Mai) wrote…

This needs to be removed.

Done.

Copy link
Contributor

@srfrog srfrog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @danielmai)

Copy link
Contributor

@srfrog srfrog left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @danielmai)

@manishrjain manishrjain merged commit 3d0b2cd into master Oct 11, 2018
@manishrjain manishrjain deleted the mrjn/license branch October 11, 2018 00:17
dna2github pushed a commit to dna2fork/dgraph that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2019
While the promise of Commons Clause is a great one, i.e. restricting resale while allowing proprietary usage, its subjective implementation generates a lot of friction and confusion for the open source community.

Being an open source developer at heart, I'm glad to be bringing Dgraph back to Apache 2.0 license. It is something that we started off with, but then got lost into the AGPL woods. At the end of the day, Apache license is the gold standard of licenses, and something open source users (i.e. the world) feel very comfortable with. The vision for Dgraph is to bring graph databases mainstream, allowing them to be the primary databases holding the source of truth, and that's only possible if it can be adopted by any company, big or small, without any concerns.

**Apache license lets achieve that vision.**

We will be adding proprietary features later on under an enterprise license, but as long as I'm in charge, we're not moving the core away from Apache 2.0 license. This is it.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants