|
1 | 1 | # Licensing FAQ |
2 | 2 |
|
3 | | -This document answers the most common questions about how Code Context |
4 | | -Control (C3) is licensed and where the project is headed. It is informal |
5 | | -guidance — the authoritative documents are [`LICENSE`](LICENSE), |
6 | | -[`NOTICE`](NOTICE), and (when introduced) [`EULA-PRO.md`](EULA-PRO.md). |
| 3 | +> **Informational only.** The authoritative document is [`LICENSE`](LICENSE). |
| 4 | +> Nothing in this FAQ creates a legal obligation, warranty, or commitment. |
| 5 | +> Where this document and `LICENSE` conflict, `LICENSE` governs. |
7 | 6 |
|
8 | 7 | ## TL;DR |
9 | 8 |
|
10 | | -- **Right now (2.x releases):** Apache License 2.0. Free for any use, |
11 | | - including commercial. Modify, fork, redistribute — all permitted. |
12 | | -- **Future plan:** A paid Pro tier with license-key activation. Future |
13 | | - major versions may switch to a source-available license (e.g. BSL 1.1). |
14 | | -- **Already-published 2.x versions stay Apache-2.0 forever.** Anything |
15 | | - you've installed today is yours under permissive terms in perpetuity. |
| 9 | +- **Current license:** Apache License 2.0. Free for any use, including |
| 10 | + commercial. Modify, fork, redistribute — all permitted under Apache-2.0. |
| 11 | +- **Future versions:** the author may introduce a paid offering or |
| 12 | + relicense future major versions. No specific plan is committed. |
| 13 | +- **Already-published 2.x versions:** stay Apache-2.0 forever. Apache-2.0 |
| 14 | + makes the grant irrevocable. That's a property of the license, not a |
| 15 | + promise from anyone. |
16 | 16 |
|
17 | 17 | ## Common questions |
18 | 18 |
|
19 | 19 | ### Can I use C3 at work? |
20 | 20 |
|
21 | | -**Yes.** Apache-2.0 permits commercial use, including inside companies of |
22 | | -any size. No fee, no registration. Use it freely. |
| 21 | +Apache-2.0 permits commercial use, including inside companies of any size. |
| 22 | +No fee, no registration required by the license. |
23 | 23 |
|
24 | 24 | ### Can I fork it? |
25 | 25 |
|
26 | | -**Yes.** Apache-2.0 permits forks and derivative works. Two requests as a |
27 | | -courtesy (not legal requirements): |
| 26 | +Apache-2.0 permits forks and derivative works. Standard Apache-2.0 |
| 27 | +obligations apply (preserve `LICENSE` and `NOTICE`, state your changes). |
| 28 | +Beyond that, you are free to do what the license allows. |
28 | 29 |
|
29 | | -1. Use a distinct name — don't present your fork as an official C3 |
30 | | - distribution. ("C3" and "Code Context Control" are trademarks; see |
31 | | - [`NOTICE`](NOTICE).) |
32 | | -2. If you're forking to build a competing commercial product, please |
33 | | - email dtselenc@gmail.com first. We can almost certainly work something |
34 | | - out, and direct competition is genuinely the only thing we'd ask you |
35 | | - to think twice about. |
| 30 | +If you're building a competing commercial product on top of C3, an email |
| 31 | +to `dtselenc@gmail.com` first would be appreciated — but is not required. |
36 | 32 |
|
37 | 33 | ### Can I redistribute / repackage / re-host C3? |
38 | 34 |
|
39 | | -**Yes**, under Apache-2.0 terms (preserve the LICENSE and NOTICE files, |
40 | | -state your changes). Same courtesy request as above: please don't |
41 | | -repackage as a commercial competing product without talking first. |
| 35 | +Yes, under Apache-2.0 terms. Standard Apache obligations apply. |
42 | 36 |
|
43 | 37 | ### Will the license change in future versions? |
44 | 38 |
|
45 | | -**Possibly.** We're considering a source-available license (such as |
46 | | -**Business Source License 1.1** with a 4-year automatic conversion to |
47 | | -Apache-2.0) for future major versions (3.x onwards). This would: |
| 39 | +Possibly. The author is considering options for future major versions |
| 40 | +(3.x onwards), which could include: |
48 | 41 |
|
49 | | -- **Allow:** internal commercial use, modification, redistribution for |
50 | | - non-competing purposes, viewing source. |
51 | | -- **Restrict:** offering C3 (or substantially similar fork) as a hosted |
52 | | - service that competes with the official Code Context Control offering. |
53 | | -- **Auto-revert:** every BSL release converts to Apache-2.0 four years |
54 | | - after publication. |
| 42 | +- Continuing under Apache-2.0. |
| 43 | +- Switching to a source-available license (e.g. Business Source License |
| 44 | + 1.1, which auto-converts to Apache-2.0 after a configurable term). |
| 45 | +- Some other arrangement. |
55 | 46 |
|
56 | | -If we make this change, the affected version will be a major version bump |
57 | | -(3.0.0) and clearly announced in the changelog. We will not retroactively |
58 | | -relicense any 2.x release. |
| 47 | +No specific path is committed. Whatever happens, prior 2.x releases |
| 48 | +retain their Apache-2.0 grant because Apache-2.0 makes that grant |
| 49 | +irrevocable. |
59 | 50 |
|
60 | | -### What happens to my install if you relicense? |
| 51 | +### What happens to my install if a future version relicenses? |
61 | 52 |
|
62 | | -Nothing. Your installed version retains the license it was published |
63 | | -under. If you have v2.28.0 installed, it's Apache-2.0 forever. Upgrading |
64 | | -is opt-in — you decide whether to accept any new terms in future versions. |
| 53 | +Your installed version retains the license it was published under. |
| 54 | +Upgrading is opt-in — you choose whether any new version's terms apply |
| 55 | +to you. |
65 | 56 |
|
66 | 57 | ### Is this a "rug pull"? |
67 | 58 |
|
68 | | -We don't think so, but you get to decide. We're declaring our intent |
69 | | -**before** building a community that depends on permissive terms, |
70 | | -**not after**. That's the difference between a rug pull and an honest |
71 | | -license selection. If we *do* relicense in the future, we will: |
| 59 | +The author is being upfront about the *possibility* of future |
| 60 | +commercialization or relicensing, before any users have built things |
| 61 | +that depend on permissive terms. Whether that addresses the concern is |
| 62 | +for you to decide. |
72 | 63 |
|
73 | | -- Bump the major version (signals breaking change to license terms). |
74 | | -- Document the rationale in the changelog. |
75 | | -- Keep the prior major version available and supported for a |
76 | | - reasonable transition window. |
77 | | -- Honor every Apache-2.0 right granted under prior releases. |
| 64 | +### What about a Pro tier? |
78 | 65 |
|
79 | | -### What about the Pro tier? |
| 66 | +There is no Pro tier today. Whether one is ever introduced, and what |
| 67 | +form it would take, is not committed. |
80 | 68 |
|
81 | | -The Pro tier doesn't exist yet. When it does, it will be **additive**: |
82 | | -new features behind a license-key activation gate. We are explicitly not |
83 | | -planning to take currently-free features and put them behind the Pro |
84 | | -paywall in already-published versions. Future versions may introduce |
85 | | -new features that ship Pro-only — those features simply won't exist in |
86 | | -the OSS version. |
87 | | - |
88 | | -The Pro tier (when introduced) will be governed by [`EULA-PRO.md`](EULA-PRO.md). |
89 | | - |
90 | | -### How does the Pro tier coexist with the OSS license? |
| 69 | +### Who do I talk to about licensing questions? |
91 | 70 |
|
92 | | -The Pro features will live in the same repository and follow the same |
93 | | -license as the rest of the codebase, BUT they will require a valid |
94 | | -license key to activate. This is the model used by Sentry, GitLab, and |
95 | | -others: the *code* is permissive, but the *license keys* and the |
96 | | -*hosted issuance service* are commercial. |
| 71 | +Email `dtselenc@gmail.com`. Best effort response only — no |
| 72 | +acknowledgement, response, or resolution timeline is promised. |
97 | 73 |
|
98 | | -### Who do I talk to about licensing questions? |
| 74 | +### Is there a warranty or support obligation? |
99 | 75 |
|
100 | | -Email **`dtselenc@gmail.com`** with subject `[c3-licensing]` and we will |
101 | | -respond within a few business days. |
| 76 | +No. See `LICENSE` Sections 7 and 8 for the full disclaimer of warranty |
| 77 | +and limitation of liability. |
0 commit comments