Clarify GPLv3 license use

[Sytten]

AFAIK the GPLv3 does allow closed source proprietary as long as the program isn't redistributed externally (like if you are hosting it yourself on a private cloud). The wording in the readme seems to contradict that and seems wrong to me. Even the AGPL allows (from my understanding) the use without modification in a proprietary context. We can point to the Amazon vs Elasticsearch battle over that (https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/30/lack-of-leadership-in-open-source-results-in-source-available-licenses/) too.

I want people to contribute to the development of the software (I use the SaaS version myself), but I still feel the licensing should be clear for other people.

[joelgriffith]

Thanks for raising, we’re in the process of doing that just now. The AWS/ElasticSearch issue is one I’ve followed closely as a prior Elastic employee, and will continue to do so.

I’ll share updates once I have them

[Sytten]

@joelgriffith I mean not to be an asshole but the licensing is still contradictory, you can't say it's licensed GPLv3 AND say that you can't use it on your closed-source project. You can run GPLv3 in a closed source SaaS, it's a known loophole and the reason why AGPL exists. If you don't want people using in closed source program, you should license it AGPL to make that clear.

[adam-the]

@joelgriffith have you shared updates on this anywhere?