[akrauss]

I can see this being very useful for many admin interfaces where some basic data must be managed by domain experts and UX and is not a priority. Many enterprise applications have such parts.

I wonder what the GPLv3 licensing means for such scenarios: Could people run Mathesar one microservice in an ensemble with proprietary services? Companies who don‘t want to open source their whole product might still be willing to upstream their fixes and improvements to the Mathesar component.

[kgodey]

Yep, Mathesar is GPLv3, not AGPL, so there’s no issue running it alongside proprietary services. Companies can absolutely use Mathesar as a standalone service in their stack without open-sourcing their other components. Another example of this is WordPress, which is also GPL, and has a thriving hosting ecosystem.

GPLv3 only applies if you modify and distribute Mathesar itself, it doesn’t extend to services that simply interact with it. If a company makes changes to Mathesar and distributes that modified version, then those modifications would need to be open-sourced under GPLv3. But using Mathesar as a microservice in an enterprise stack? No problem.

We’d love to see companies upstream fixes and improvements, of course!

[red_trumpet]

Does AGPL have trouble running alongside proprietary services? I always thought AGPL means that if you host the software, you have to make any changes you did available to the users. So if you host it without changes, there is no problem?

[kgodey]

Yep, AGPL can run alongside proprietary services without issues, and if you host it without modifications, you don’t have to share anything. But if you modify it and make it available over a network, you have to provide the source to users.

Mathesar, however, is GPL, so you only need to share modifications if you actually distribute the software itself.

[yandie]

When I was at a big tech, the interpretation by their lawyers was that by running AGPL, we will have to open source everything in the network to users. The problem is in the definition of "Modification" - Per [AGPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#:~:text=To%20%...):

> "The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities."

This can be interpreted as even modifying any configuration to allow the software to run on your own infrastructure. Obviously this is a very aggressive interpretation but the lawyers didn't want us to test this phrase in court so all AGPL software had a blanket ban.