RHello, it's the latter. To comply with the AGPL, you only need to open-source modifications to windmill codebase/behavior itself. The scripts are not windmill's software
RWrapping windmill and providing it as a service does count as windmill behavior though. We provide commercial licenses for those.
RCorrect
RIf you "sell" windmill as part of your service, you would need a commercial license.
If you just install it there, and they are the one in control of it, and apart from support you do not sell any affiliation, then it's like if they installed it themselves so we would appreciate if you encourage them to take an enterprise license but it's up to them.
If you just install it there, and they are the one in control of it, and apart from support you do not sell any affiliation, then it's like if they installed it themselves so we would appreciate if you encourage them to take an enterprise license but it's up to them.
RAs long as you make it clear that windmill is a free software and do not make any modification of the software itself (including branding, but scripts flows are not modifications of the software) then you're compliant with the license as far as I can tell.
RAnyway, i'm the founder, I won't sue you, but if you feel like windmill is a big part of the value that you intend to offer, we would of course feel more comfortable with a commercial license. If you're just providing the convenience of installing it for them and writing script/flows for them but it's still "their" windmill, then it seems clean to me.
RRegardless of licensing, I think the more important thing is that you or your clients would get priority support, and increased influence on our roadmap 
RI'm sure we can find an arrangement that would suit you best with respect to that. Volume licensing works for me
RWe're still at the stage where i'm happy to do really case-by-case contracting and if the contract feels fair to both parties then that's probably the most important. We will of course grandfather any such contract
LYou are saying that if someone sells the AGPL version, unmodified, as a SaaS, the AGPL license does not kick-in. That's what https://fossa.com/blog/oss-license-compliance-expert-heather-meeker-agpl/ Heather Meeker said about AGPL.
But kind of contradicts what you said before: If you "sell" windmill as part of your service, you would need a commercial license.
But kind of contradicts what you said before: If you "sell" windmill as part of your service, you would need a commercial license.
Dependency Heaven
Heather Meeker, one of the world's foremost experts on open source license compliance, discusses the AGPL and its provisions covering network deployment.
RIf you do not want to open-source your whole service with AGPL, yes
LSo you agree with Heather, that the code won't need to be open sourced if sold, unmodified. We have an agency selling it to us together with other products, and from my understanding of AGPL and after double check with lawyers they said so. But wanted to be sure.
RWhy would someone agree to buy something they can get for free ?
LI am buying the management of the hosting. Not the code.
LWithin that management, a few oss products are included, the products are not modified.
RThe managing software would need to be open-sourced
LBut, Windmill company offer the AGPL code as well, right? Are you open sourcing your terraforms and basically your SaaS management. What Heather said, is that cloud is delivery and not code, and won't be considered a derivative work.
RWe do not need to because we own the copyright
Rwe granted ourself a different license
Ronly others need to abide by the rules of the AGPL. And we have taken the legal route with a few companies already that were wrapping windmill and not open-sourcing their wrappers. And will do in the future. As a result, you should have a provision in your contract with that agency that protect you against the fact that we will likely take legal measures against them.
RIt seems highly unethical to try to make profit from our software and depriving us of that profit so we have a 0 tolerance policy on the matter
LDid you check with lawyers, what is considered a wrapper and what is not. We checked and what I heard from them is that cloud distribution does not equals to "derivative work" if the code is not changed or forked.
RYes we checked with lawyers, and they have a different opinion
LI guess using the Elastic license would make it more clear.
By saying that a company needs to open source its whole infrastructure, you are just making it impossible. So, in the end, you are the only commercial option. I know your lawyers don't agree, but I am 100% sure that that's not the definition that the OSI has of what defines an open-source license.
By saying that a company needs to open source its whole infrastructure, you are just making it impossible. So, in the end, you are the only commercial option. I know your lawyers don't agree, but I am 100% sure that that's not the definition that the OSI has of what defines an open-source license.
RYes we are the only commercial option of the software we built. If you're looking to profit from software made by others, you should look into Apache 2 or MIT licensed projects.
LOk, that's not AGPL, but ok, I get your point.