Change license to something normal like Apache 2.0 / BSD / MIT

[robd003]

Switching to something weird and esoteric like Fair Source is just going to drive away adoption.

Could you please relicense Tart to a normal license that complies with Open Source ideals? I'd suggest Apache 2.0, MIT or BSD

[fkorotkov]

We believe that switching from AGPL to Fair Source will actually increase adoption since AGPL is a bit controversial. Please check out our blog post about the switch and the motivation.

The main reason behind the switch is to fuel active development of Tart beyond needs that we already covered for ourselves. We don't see how switching to something like Apache 2.0, MIT or BSD in favor of AGPL will bring active outside contributors.

[rockdreamer]

Hi @fkorotkov,

Before what I say next, I should make a premise: you and the other people that have contributed up to now are the copyright owners of the code and as such, it is your and only your prerogative to decide what the future license will be. If you decide to make the code you wrote private and make a commercial product, that is also your right and you don't have to make excuses about it! Life is too short for that :)

That being said, I'm sad about this change because I just went through a lengthy process at the company I work for to be able to contribute. It took months for various reasons (yes, including because AGPL was chosen) but it was successful in the end. This license change has invalidated the process and wasted the work of quite a few people.

Please consider one of the following options:

• keeping the AGPL (which is not that controversial unless you work for a cloud provider!) or
• moving to GPL 2 or 3 so that third parties cannot take the code and make a closed source product (GPL is easier on the legal side)
• or move to a non copyleft open source license like MIT or BSD as @robd003 proposed (but then anyone can close the code)

I see that the license on the repository is still AGPL. Please update it if this is no longer the case!

[fkorotkov]

Hey @rockdreamer, sorry to hear about the tedious process you went through.

We are not making the code private. Tart will be source available but won't be considered open source anymore according to OSI. If you or your company are alarmed of the upcoming licenses fees, please let me clarify them. Please also check the announcement blog post that goes into more details if you haven't seen it.

Starting from Tart 1.0.0 (subscribe to #415 for updates) the following usage pattern are clearly royalty free without AGPL implications:

• Using Tart on personal computed (MacBooks, Mac Minis, Mac Studious, etc.)
• Using Tart on personal work stations at your company
• Using Tart on a remote machine that a single individual is using
• Using Tart on a cluster of shared machines that utilize up to 100 cores. For example, 10 latest Mac Minis with M2 Pro chip

The only use case when your organization need to carry about the licensing is when your organization surpasses the 100 cores usage limit on a cluster. We believe if an organization is in need for such substantial usage and already paying many thousands of dollars monthly for the pricey Apple hardware, there is a budged to sponsor development of Tart (the licensing fees are relatively insignificant).

[rockdreamer]

Hi @fkorotkov, the difficulty for companies of such size is not royalty fees. If there is a business justification for it, the company pays what is necessary to license everything or just doesn't use it!

It's the cost of the process to follow the licensing. Legal fees to study a new license are non trivial. For medium projects, the meeting time required to figure out how many cores might be used can make the royalty fees seem puny. That's the real value of an AGPL or MIT licensed product.

There is little chance that I'll be allowed to contribute to third party software that is not OSI approved. I'll be trying things out on a fork starting from the current code (assuming that is still under the AGPL license per LICENSE file).

Thank you for sharing under the AGPL up to now with everyone! <3

[naikrovek]

My employer won't buy licenses for anything unless there is both a legally negotiated agreement between both companies regarding their relationship and very solid support provided as well as guarantees about response timelines.

an AGPL exception is easier, so I'm forking at the last commit with the AGPLv3 license attached and will maintain my own copy, for now. In the future it seems likely that I will write my own tool and move forward using that.

I'm saddened by this license change, but it's not my code, so it's not my decision.

[fkorotkov]

@naikrovek we do have an agreement for the licensing which includes support with SLAs. Please check out this template. Hopefully it will satisfy your employer. In case not, we are also sadden, I personally enjoyed your thoughtful issues and reports!

[naikrovek]

I didn't know that was available. I can't know if that will satisfy my employer until the lawyers get involved and that's a rather involved process that I don't want to start until I'm sure that it needs to be started.

You've created a great tool, here. Virtually ideal, I'd say. With copy-on-write filesystems like APFS, tools very similar to this would be ideal on Windows and Linux, as well. Especially Windows.

I'll continue to follow what you guys are doing, don't worry about that.