Stefan Rasmussen

    Stefan Rasmussen

    8 months ago
    Orion License: In This commit the claim that "As Orion matures, most or all of its components will be released under the Apache 2.0 license." was removed from the Orion docs. Does this mean that Orion will not be released under Apache 2.0?
    Anna Geller

    Anna Geller

    8 months ago
    Good question, I would rely on the statement from the documentation. “The Prefect Community License places no restrictions on use except for distributing Prefect Orion as a service outside your organization. If you have any questions about licensing, please contact us.”
    Stefan Rasmussen

    Stefan Rasmussen

    8 months ago
    Hi! The community license part, or the "contact us" part? Im just interrested in whether this change means "We will not release it under Apache 2.0" or "We're not guaranteeing it, but it could still happen".
    Anna Geller

    Anna Geller

    8 months ago
    You can rely on the statement that the license places no restrictions on use except for distributing Prefect Orion as a service outside your organization. I’m no lawyer 🙂 if you have very specific license question (as whether this license falls under Apache 2.0 or Prefect License), you can send an email to legal@prefect.io
    Stefan Rasmussen

    Stefan Rasmussen

    8 months ago
    I understand that it's licensed under the Prefect License. But to me, removing that claim shows a big change in what the intention going forward is. I'm just interrested on an informal level on whether this shows a change of intention or if the intention is unchanged and Prefect just doesn't want to overpromise.
    Jeremiah

    Jeremiah

    8 months ago
    Hi Stefan, we remain as committed as ever to ensuring that Prefect can be used in the most permissive way possible by as many developers as possible - no change in intent! We see more and more “Powered by Prefect” products and it’s awesome, we want to see as much of that as we can. To give you some background, our original goal was to mirror the current setup where the engine was Apache 2.0 licensed and the server was PCL licensed (which, as you may know, affords all the same protections as Apache 2.0 except to an extraordinary minority of users who would offer it as a SaaS product). However, as you may remember from before we split Server into its own repo, having dual-licensed software in the same repo (Apache 2.0 and PCL) can create a lot confusion for users and raise more questions than either license individually. We started reviewing license options this week and, as we consider a range of options, we thought it was prudent not to preempt the actual license decision in the FAQ.
    Stefan Rasmussen

    Stefan Rasmussen

    8 months ago
    Hi @Jeremiah, thanks for your answer. I'm looking forward to hearing the decision. For my case specifically, the uncertainty is a blocker for adoption which is why I raised it.
    Chris White

    Chris White

    8 months ago
    Hey @Stefan Rasmussen I'm reading your comment as saying that the community license is not appropriate for your use case; would you mind clarifying why that is for my own understanding? Feel free to DM me if you can't share publicly
    Stefan Rasmussen

    Stefan Rasmussen

    8 months ago
    Thanks Chris, I have DM'ed you.