Hacker News Reader

Comment by TAForObvReasons | Hacker News Reader

In case you haven't worked at a larger company before:

- nonstandard license = legal will have to review license

- AGPLv3 is a non-starter at many places

AGPLv3 software is used in some places, but projects normally license the pre-compiled binaries under more permissive terms. Example: mattermost is AGPLv3 but the binaries are MIT-licensed https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/... so it'll be easier to get approval to use the binaries.

I'm sure SharpScript is a cool technology, but some of your licensing choices really hamper adoption.

View on HN

As I've said above, only OSS projects that create custom builds from source use the AGPL/FLOSS license, the license was added to allow OSS projects to use all of ServiceStack without needing to pay for a developers license.

All other usages of ServiceStack from its official NuGet packages are only available under its commercial license which only requires a paid developers license for its commercial products that contains free-quota usage restrictions [1]. The rest of ServiceStack, inc. all core and client libraries like ServiceStack.Text, ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script), ServiceStack.Client, etc are all unrestricted libraries that are available to use graits/for free.

[1] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas

So you are saying the lawyers have to approve the "ServiceStack License Agreement". The probability of this may be within an order of magnitude of likeliness as getting approval for the AGPLv3.

https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common/ -> "License Info" -> https://servicestack.net/terms

Right they'd approve the commercial license just as they would with every other commercial product they're using.

> which is probably in the same order of magnitude of likeliness as the AGPLv3

It's disingenuous to claim the commercial license is the same as the AGPL, the commercial license allows usage in closed-source programs, AGPL does not.

Sorry if my wording was confusing... my claim is that the likelihood of a sign-off from the lawyers was similar, not that the licenses were similar.

In both cases the license serves as a bump in the road that doesn't need to be there. ScriptSharp seems like an awesome piece of kit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com