We fund the project entirely from sales of the Confluence integration.
Just to extend the conversation, the change implements one thing, it protects our revenue in the atlassian ecosystem.
What it does it protect the future development of the project by protecting the revenue. That’s more useful to you than the license being fully open source.
The primary losers of this change is anyone wanting to integrate draw.io into the Atlassian ecosystem.
I mean this does seem kind of fair. I’m not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations, I’m not sure of how common it’s use is and how much is affected by this though.
I’m okay with something being 98% open source so they can survive on the extra 2%. And I much rather specific non competes for certain platforms then broad non-commercial clauses.
I mean this does seem kind of fair. I’m not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations
He should just use AGPL then.
That’s substantially more restrictive than “Apache but you can’t sell it through this specific channel”, and it wouldn’t help this particular problem.
It’s not that the knock off extensions don’t want to share their code (they probably do).
Atlassian could sell extensions, though, they would just need to comply with the AGPL. The AGPL means that the entire platform must comply with the AGPL, so proprietary platforms couldn’t use it but in a fair “applies to everyone the same” and not “we don’t like you individually” kind of way.
- None of the Work may be used in any form as part, or whole, of an integration, plugin or app that integrates with Atlassian’s Confluence or Jira products.
its just the apache 2 license with a restriction to not sell this project on one marketplace. Can still sell the code elsewhere. Its still totally open source, and honestly Confluence is not something I would loose sleep on. Jira has been a cash cow for a long time, and I have a beef with them anyway
Its still totally open source
No, it’s not. Those restrictions are against the open source definition.
Edit: Lol, people with no clue donvoting what they don’t want to hear. The open source definition is a fixed set of clauses. Read up on it.
I have a totally different view, if I can use it in my own projects, that are released with an MIT or Apache 2 or similar license, then its open source.
Not that I want to, but I could contribute to draw.io, or fork it and privately make changes, then make money off either the original repo or my fork, and its legal.
I could sell one line of code change for a million dollars and then start writing daily taunting letters, daring them to sue me, and I would be fine.
How is that not open source?
Because of the “no restrictions on use” thing.
I’m happy this arrangement works for you, but it’s clearly pushing beyond the boundaries of OSI-defined open source, let alone Free Software.
Honestly good on them for keeping the spirit alive for just about everyone who isn’t a direct competitor of theirs.
Let them make some money to continue to fund it. They even invalidated all sponsorships because of the license change.
Unless you personally were willing to fund whatever they make on their integration, then this is an ok play in my book.
Hmmm. I wonder who is making so much money off this that the project is willing to push them into forking it . . . ?
