I want it to be called citrus, which is what I always read it as....
Then I'd get confused and think it had something to do with Citrix.
Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
41–50 of 156 posts
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that mean that whatever connects to this database needs to be AGPL too?
No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network.
If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess.
See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well.
Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another HN thread about some other nice but AGPL licensed software I've never heard about again:
"""The Opa web site says that I cannot: "Firstly, `‘if I'm using AGPL Opa to develop an app does it need to be AGPL, too?’'. Long story short — yes, it does." """ [0]
IANAL but being a nerd I have read a lot of licenses and it seems pretty clear to me that thats what companies has in mind when they license something under AGPL.
Unless someone can prove me wrong I hope we can stop spreading the misconception that AGPL somehow isn't viral.
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#43Being burned before,I will never use an OS infrastructure project that has enterprise features you need to pay for. They always try to move you to paid and make the OSS version unpleasant to use over time as soon as the bean counters take over to milk you "For customers with large production deployments, we also offer an enterprise edition that comes with additional functionality"
Feel free to code your own
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another H…
You have misread and other people have misunderstood then.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl clearly explains what the license intends as does the second paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License.
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another H…
Since citus is just an extension, the normal drivers for postgres just work. And those are BSD licensed (well, it's the postgres license, but the difference is essentially nonexistent).
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#46This is awesome! Tebrikler (congrats) on the release of 5.0 and going OS, definitely great news. Can you publish competitive positioning of Citus vs Actian Matrix (nee ParAccel) and Vertica? I'd love to compare them side by side - even if it's just from your point of view :-)
...and Redshift. I love what Amazon provide, but it gets expensive.
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#47So this sounds similar to Pivotal's Greenplum which is also open source, can anyone compare the two?
Greenplum is based on postgres 8.2, with the featureset you'd expect from pg 8.2 - basically none of the additions after 2006 have merged to GP.
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another H…
You have misread and other people have misunderstood then. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl clearly explains what the license intends as does the second paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License .
See my edit as well.
Based on what GNU says in the first link it seems kind of reasonable although I will not dare to use it without checking carefully with lawyers as this obviously this isn't what a lot of people think.
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#49Postgres just doesn't scale, learnt that one the hard way
Re: Citus Unforks from PostgreSQL, Goes Open Source
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another H…
That might be what some companies have in mind, but those companies are wrong to use the AGPL because that isn't what the license says. I don't really know how one could read the AGPL and think that it requires clients to be AGPLed.
The only difference between the AGPL and GPL, other than the name, is that the AGPL requires you to offer to provide the source of your modified version of the software to all of its users. In short: network interaction equals distribution.
It says nothing about what licenses may apply to any software that interacts with the AGPLed software over a network. Anyone that suggests otherwise is misleading you or are mislead themselves.
Edit:
Note that MongoDB's drivers are MIT-licensed because they are made "part of" the client software. (A)GPL virality would come into play for drivers incorporated into clients.