search

gravitl / netmaker

Netmaker makes networks with WireGuard. Netmaker automates fast, secure, and distributed virtual networks.
https://netmaker.io
Other
9.4k stars 547 forks source link

Request: To change the license to AGPL #597

Closed harishpillay closed 12 months ago

harishpillay commented 2 years ago

I understand the motivation of the current license of SSPL. I feel it would be better expressed in the AGPL and that would mean that the code is is truly FOSS compliant which, as it stands, SSPL is not.

afeiszli commented 2 years ago

We periodically review our decision on the licensing to see if another license makes more sense. I'll leave this open to allow others to comment with their thoughts.

turicas commented 2 years ago

It would be awesome to have a FLOSS-compliant license! The product is great but I have some contracts where only FLOSS can be deployed (I think any OSI-approved copylefted license will do the job).

timwhite commented 1 year ago

I was looking at netmaker vs a few other mesh wireguard services and won't be considering netmaker due to its SSPL licence. AGPL would be a fine licensee that's recognised as open source. Netmaker has more features than the other options I'm looking at, but a licence that prevents us from using it as it's not truely open.

blitzcaster commented 1 year ago

Your website mentioned open source, yet you're using a licensed that are not considered open source by both OSI and FSF. Would you mind changing your wording to "source-available" to avoid misleading people?

screenshot

bartmathijssen commented 1 year ago

I have to agree with the previous points made. I am really excited for Netmaker's future, but as long as Netmaker doesn't have a FOSS license, I am not willing to pull the trigger to use it to manage my whole network.

DolevBaron commented 1 year ago

I'll have to agree with the general consensus here - In my opinion, the current license restricts NetMaker's use cases and potential. Shouldn't requiring the publication of any modified version of the original source code be enough? (without having the same restriction for 3rd-party programs)

penyuan commented 1 year ago

Your website mentioned open source, yet you're using a licensed that are not considered open source by both OSI and FSF. Would you mind changing your wording to "source-available" to avoid misleading people?

Agreed, can the maintainers at least not call Netmaker open source? The current license literally does not meet the Open Source Definition nor the Free Software Definition. It is misleading to call it open source.

I have to agree with the previous points made. I am really excited for Netmaker's future, but as long as Netmaker doesn't have a FOSS license, I am not willing to pull the trigger to use it to manage my whole network.

Also agreed.

In addition to the AGPLv3, another license that could be considered is the MPLv2. Both have been known to enable commercially successful projects like Tooljet (US$ 2.5+ million raised in a few months) or Penpot (US$ 8 million in Series A funding). So if commercial viability is what the maintainers are concerned about, then definitely check out those (and other) projects!

ptman commented 1 year ago

source available / fair code https://faircode.io/

afeiszli commented 12 months ago

Netmaker is now on the Apache-2.0 license :) closing.

https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker/blob/master/LICENSE.md