Hacker News Reader

Comment by ensignavenger | Hacker News Reader

Can you clarify, is everything in your repo (https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio) AGPL like it says in the readme, or are there parts of the repo under a different license, as this file seems to imply- https://github.com/Reflio-com/reflio/blob/main/apps/reflio/L...? I don't see any license header or anything else that would indicate that some files are under a different license?

Second, what license is the Reflio referral tracking script under? It appears that this script should be integrated into the SaaS product itself? Having that script AGPL would be a poison pill that no sane non-AGPL SaaS would swallow.

View on HN

Hey thank you for your comment. I took the idea of Reflio’s licensing from other larger commercial open-source products, but I understand now that it’s a bit confusing.

The idea was that Reflio is 100% free to self-host in your own public repo. If you wish to make the code private, then you need to purchase a commercial license. That’s how I plan to set up the licensing. I’ll be changing the licensing file and README shortly to reflect this.

Looking at cal.com, which I noticed you said is what you are basing this on, it appears they are 100% AGPL... the other license file in your repo seems to imply that some of your code is not AGPL... but it isn't clear what that might be.

The AGPL on everything should accomplish that, and you can just note that commercial licenses are available for those wanting to keep their fork private.

But I suggest you license any javascript or client side libraries under a more permissive license, probably MIT or similiar-- because your SaaS customers probably don't want to make their entire SaaS app AGPL (Unless you only want to serve AGPL licensed SaaS customers). I think you use Sentry- look at the way they have their server under a NOT open source-available license, but the client libraries are under a permissive open source license- you can have the server under the AGPL, while using a more permissive library on the client libraries.

Beyond that, you should consider that there are many successful open source companies that use more permissive Open Source licenses and many companies that refuse to even consider AGPL licenses software. Personally not a huge fan of the AGPL due to to many uncertainties involved with it.

It is your project and you can license it however you want, and I appreciate that you have chosen an Open Source license, even if it is the AGPL. I just want to help you be more clear about the licensing and maybe put some consideration into if the AGPL is really the right license, rather than just following others :)

Also, consider that you can state your intent in the readme and that is great- you should- but it is the license that companies look to to decide if they want to use it or not, and generally to determine what they can and can't do

One other thing to consider is a CLA- if you plan to accept contributions from outsiders, and you stick with AGPL+Commercial, you will want any contributors to sign a CLA that grants you the right to sell their contributions under the commercial license. This would be a hard stop for me, and others like me, to contributing to the code... but is necessary if you want to accept outside contributions while offering a commercial license option. (Another good reason not to use the AGPL, if you want to encourage community development- many commercial open source products simply forbid outside contributions of code, though, or don't care about outside contributors).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com