libxml2 Enterprise Edition (AGPL, from the previous maintainer)
21 points by gioele
21 points by gioele
It’s unclear what makes it Enterprise Edition. It looks like a private fork, no more no less.
My educated guess is that the choice of AGPL + Enterprise Edition is a bit tongue in cheek. Enterprises are usually allergic to the AGPL, and would rather pay for a proprietary license. Thus, in this sense, AGPL encourages supporting the project financially, in a way MIT does not.
Based on the issue tracker discussion several months back this seems to be the likely answer.
Since this is the continuation of the project I wouldn't call this a fork, if there's a fork it would be whatever continues the last MIT licensed version of the project.
My advice: Try asking questions when you don't understand something. Maybe something like "Why is it called Enterprise Edition? I don't know anything about why libxml2 would be forked by the previous maintainer, with new changes under the AGPL!"
If that's not your question, my apologies, but without a specific question it is very difficult to tell whether your issue is that you don't know how to do any online searches, or you didn't want to and wanted everyone to know that.
I both know the story about Nick not liking maintaining libxml2 and I'm still not sure read out what makes this repo... Enterprise, besides the relicensing to AGPL maybe.
The comment comes off as a bit pushy, if you know the answer, it'd have been helpful to write that instead so we're not scratching our heads
Why is it called Enterprise Edition?
How AGPL make things materially different to MIT? Especially in the Enterprise setting?
Enterprises do not want to use AGPL software. Since this fork doesn’t accept external contributions, and the upstream is MIT licensed, that means enterprises will not want to use this fork as is. Potentially this is a prelude to a CLA and a business to sell exemptions? Especially if the author believes upstream will stagnate or that their fork will be materially better in some way. Or maybe it’s just a middle finger to enterprises, if the author believes they were taking the previous project for granted