Hi mlohbihler,

I cannot find clearly wrote anywhere what license will be used for MA 2.0. Only if you or Joel can write it down clearly, I can understand if the software will be OpenSource, FLOSS, or both.

Thanks for your time!

This is hilarious!

Honestly I cannot understand the rationale! I will be glad if Joel can give us more details on the business model to understand what can be done and what cannot.

But in the end, I will not contribute to anything that clearly states that I have the right to contribute and I can use the contribution as I want.

Making an example:
If Infiniteautomation release the software as GPL (and so I can contribute) why limit the use at runtime? It's against the GPL, so you cannot use the GPL! It's a short-circuit!
If Infiniteautomation doesn't release the software as GPL, I cannot contribute, so the problem ends here!
In general, if you limits the freedoms, you cannot use a FLOSS license. If you don't use a FLOSS license I cannot contribute, but for your choice.

Please bear in mind that this wasn't be a discussion on the best business model or the difference between FLOSS/open source/free-gratis, I'm only trying to understand what I can LEGALLY make with Mango.
I will be only a (paying) customer? I'll can be a contributor? Will I make a plugin to sell to my customers? I think these are legitimate questions!

Thank you for your time!

I'm and advocate of FLOSS for many years and I know well the matter. Also I know the subtle relation between "OpenSource" and open source, but I think we can agree that generally OpenSource means FLOSS.

For the pragmatic inside me, having an open source code that I can see but cannot touch is something similar to not having the code at all. We should agree that the reason behind FLOSS is to share the knowledge and make the software advance collaboratively, the reason behind having an inspectable code is to make the development process closed on it's own.

The page I linked on says clearly:

"Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."

Will have MA 2.0 this freedom? If not, it will be similar to a closed source software with inspectable code.

Hi Joel!

Sorry, but frankly I don't understand!

Your software will be free for non commercial use. This conflict with "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html of the general concept behind FLOSS software. So your software is closed source! OK, I can inspect your code because you are a good guy, but this doesn't have anything to do with FLOSS!
You can also open the code or setup a public repo, but who will contribute knowing that you are owner of the rights on that software and the contribution could not be used freely? In some countries, modifying source code for which you not have rights is illegal!
If you want to be open, legally for you, your customers and future developers, you should switch to an open core business model, in which the core is FLOSS, plugins are not. Or alternatively you can switch to a dual license model like Mysql, if anyone want's to redistribute the code in a product, it should comply with the GPL or pay you a fee.

I the license will be GPL or similar, I can fork your code and remove the limitation on use with a license and make my own patches, but this is a pity.

I'm bashing nobody, it's your choice, you are founding the project with your efforts so you can choice what license and what business model use for your software.

For me, FLOSS has a strategical meaning, so I'll choice always and ever FLOSS. I'm a contributor to many FLOSS projects (as developer, tester, bug hunter) and I generally contribute also economically, so I want to contribute, and this is the reason behind my choice on FLOSS.
I want to build a project on Mango and I have to write some code, if Mango will be FLOSS, I could contribute back my code!

Ok so the software is closed source.

Open Source (or free software for the most of us) should respect the 4 famous freedoms, your software will miss something, so I think the best name should be "freeware" or "free core", please don't use the "open source" software words, it's misleading.

You should at least tell us under which license yuo'll release the software, but I think it will not be "GPL", "MIT" nor "APACHE".

It's really a shame that a great software like Mango will be closed, I'm just installing Scadabr! :)

I'm asking to infiniteautomation,

This software is now closed source? It really intrest me, because I avoid closed source software for strategical reasons (and i will pay for free software).

So if you can state clearly what's the state of this project, I will avoid to waste my time.

Thanks!

I'm asking to infiniteautomation,

This software is now closed source? It really intrest me, because I avoid closed source software for strategical reasons (and i will pay for free software).

So if you can state clearly what's the state of this project, I will avoid to waste my time.

Thanks!