If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed.
Do you (or anyone, really) know of a place with a decent definition of how AGPL code needs to be treated?
I'm not clear about what the line is that says "everything from this point must have its source released" versus "all this stuff is OK to license as you please"
Sort of. Thanks to section 13 in each license, AGPLv3 and GPLv3 code can be combined. You end up keeping the Affero provisions on your work, which should be sufficient protection.
Comments
So... what are the real impacts on a commercial website that uses AGPLed code?
I am not a lawyer.
If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed.
MongoDB takes this approach, and has written more at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing
Actually, I figured if it's AGPL then basically everything has to be AGPL. We'll see how that goes.
Do you (or anyone, really) know of a place with a decent definition of how AGPL code needs to be treated?
I'm not clear about what the line is that says "everything from this point must have its source released" versus "all this stuff is OK to license as you please"
Sort of. Thanks to section 13 in each license, AGPLv3 and GPLv3 code can be combined. You end up keeping the Affero provisions on your work, which should be sufficient protection.