About the license

[SrGeneroso]

Hi, quick question, I've read most of the license and the explanation and I would like a quick clarification, If I make a piece of software that uses TrailBase as part of it, I can use other licenses along that, meaning that I can copyright the rest of the code and I just have to disclose my code regarding to and if changes are made to the trailbase code. Did I understand it correctly?

[ignatz]

Hi, quick question, I've read most of the license and the explanation and I would like a quick clarification,

Hi. I'm in a similar boat. I can only really talk about the intent and why I chose this license, rather than if I chose correctly. I'm not a lawyer. In other words, if you find inconsistencies please let me know so we can iron them out. Especially since I haven't found any good precedent of copyleft + software that can be used as a standalone server as well as a "library".

If I make a piece of software that uses TrailBase as part of it,

AFAICT, the "part of it" is the tricky bit.

Firstly, copyleft only kicks in when you start distributing software, with AGPL, OSL, et al also covering network distribution (as opposed to binary distribution).

For example, you build a SaaS with a bunch of binaries, micro-services, ... that talk to a AGPL licensed standalone-server, only changes you make to the standalone server are covered and the rest is yours (e.g. elasticsearch, grafana, ...).

However, if you built all your business logic into the AGPL server, your business logic would be covered as well due to the deliberately loose definition of derived work in the GPL.

Now, TrailBase is different. It offers two additional options (besides a sea of services around it):

1. Running JS/TS code in the runtime
2. Or building your own custom binary embedding TrailBase as a "library"/framework.

The AGPL would presumably cover (1) and certainly cover (2), which is certainly not what I intended. I'm interested in fixes and features for TrailBase itself rather than receiving patches for folks' ToDo-list-services 🙃 .

That's why I chose the OSL because to my limited understanding it has a more narrow definition of derived work excluding (1) and (2).

I can use other licenses along that, meaning that I can copyright the rest of the code and I just have to disclose my code regarding to and if changes are made to the trailbase code. Did I understand it correctly?

That's my understanding and my intend. It's definitely true if you use TrailBase-as-a-server, which would also be ok with AGPL.

Again, if anyone stumbles on this and knows better, help @SrGeneroso and me out. Appreciated

[SrGeneroso]

Licenses are so hard... people still believe that the models you make in blender are also open source but I digress, the project looks cool and I wish it get better with time. In any case, it might be wise to choose a "proper" license if it gets more traction.
Thanks for sharing!

[ignatz]

Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated.

In any case, it might be wise to choose a "proper" license if it gets more traction.

Could you expand a little? I really want to nail this and want to pick the license to best fit the intent: copyleft, network distribution and framework use-cases.
I'd love to hear:

• any concerns you may have with OSL
• or even better, if you can suggest a better option.

Thanks