[Shamanmuni]

No, the AGPL uses strong copyleft, so any future derivative work must be released under the same terms (and the same license or later versions if I'm not mistaken). The only possibility is to start a closed source clone that doesn't use any of the original code from zero.

The cases in which the community forks a project licensed with a copyleft license (like LibreOffice) has to do with insatisfaction with the direction in which the company that owns the original trademarks is leading said project. There's no risk of closing the source code.

[coffeemug]

> No, the AGPL uses strong copyleft, so any future derivative work must be released under the same terms (and the same license or later versions if I'm not mistaken). The only possibility is to start a closed source clone that doesn't use any of the original code from zero.

Slava @ RethinkDB here.

This has one exception -- the copyright owner can choose to start releasing enhancements as closed source, and they wouldn't be legally obligated to open source them. Currently RethinkDB, Inc. owns the rights to the code -- if we wanted to continue developing closed-source enhancements, technically we could. If we were acquired and our acquirer chose to do that, they could too (since they'd end up owning the rights to the code). Copyright and licensing are different things -- essentially the copyright owner has the right to relicense future code in a different way.

We have extremely strong incentives not to engage in bad behavior (and it runs against our beliefs), but I thought I'd point out that there is no legal barrier.

[exelius]

One caveat with this: if your project is open source and has accepted submissions from non-affiliated entities, you would either need to get them to assign the rights to that code to RethinkDB or remove them from the source if you were to relicense under something that would break the AGPL. This is where things like code releases come in.

This is also why many open source startups don't accept code submissions from outsiders until they've determined they're going down the path of a consulting-focused business model. It's just too risky.

[coffeemug]

Yes, we ask all contributors to sign the CLA (http://rethinkdb.com/community/cla/).

[e12e]

Just a note: the comparison with foundation db isn't all that apt -- Sun/Solaris+ZFS/Oracle is probably a more apt comparison to what could hypothetically change if RethinkDB is bought up (by, say, Oracle..).

I'm not suggesting that is likely, but that it's more what would/could happen -- there is already a real, working, full product that wouldn't disappear over night. And a commercial fork would likely be pretty painful for everyone, just as closed Solaris is looking less and less interesting as both many of the minds behind the great parts of Solaris work on Open Solaris in one form or another, and as fewer community resources go into closed Solaris.

I see the AGPL (as opposed to some ad-hoc license) as another benefit for RethinkDB. Many might not like the copyleft-part -- but at least it is a known and well-documented quantity -- no surprises likely to come from/with forking and/or when trying to merge with other Free software (be that BSD or GPL or...).

[eternalban]

Slava, why do you consider that bad behavior?

- You & and your team have put in 5 years of effort. - You have generously shared your mind product. The community has it.

I don't [know] about you, but over here in NYC, we have to pay for food, rent, clothing, medical insurance, entertainment, etc. Not a single one of these transactions involves counter parties that would smile my way and say "it's on the house".

[andrewflnr]

Well, for one thing, at this point it would be a bait-and-switch.