Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

blog.timescale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 220 posts

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#141

Post by GordonS »

teraflop wrote: post #75
thesausageking wrote: post #41

What's the difference between Timescale's license ("free to everyone except cloud providers") and GPLv3?

The differences are pretty substantial. The GPL puts no restrictions whatsoever on how you can use software that falls under it. Timescale's license, on the other hand, gives you very limited usage rights. You can use unmodified versions of the software, but you can't allow clients to make schema changes, nor can you use it to provide any service that is "primarily [a] database storage or operations product or servic…

> In addition, Timescale's license is much more restrictive about allowing derivative works. The GPL lets you create modified versions and/or reuse code in other products, no matter how extensive your changes, as long as the results are also GPL-licensed

I mean, to be fair and add some balance here, a lot of people find that part of the GPL to be very restrictive.

There are many organisations who have banned the use of GPL code altogether because of this, and also because of ambiguity in the license (e.g. the never ending debate about static and dynamic linking etc).

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#142

Post by eitland »

tomnipotent wrote: post #45
eitland wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That sounds like open source to me, I bet they're just being really conservative about saying "open source" because people there's been so much backlash at MongoDB/Cockroach/etc for similar restrictions. Open Source has a very defined meaning. Please read up on the history of open source and source available licenses before saying it is all the same. We've been defending it against a number of attacks and we will p…

> Please read up on the history of open source Not this patronizing bullshit again. The term "open source" was marketing to take advantage of Netscape releasing their source code. Since since, everyone seems keen on trying to usurp its definition for whatever personal perspective they have that week. To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly…

> this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source"

No! You cannot modify and give away the code or even run your own modifications in production. That is pretty far from both the letter and the spirit of open source..!

> that we're all that much richer for having.

Agree, thanks Timescale members for sharing it! Also I'm happy that you on the team have decided not to pretend it is Open Source.

My beef is only with people who want to pretend that it is OK to say that software that cannot be modified and used/distributed is open source.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#143

Post by manigandham »

petr25102018 wrote: post #83

Why should someone use TimescaleDB over ClickHouse for time-series/analytics workloads?

The biggest reason is if you're using Postgres already as an operational database and want some timeseries/analytical capabilities.

Originally Timescale wasn't much more than automatic partitioning but with the new compression and scale out features, along with the automatic aggregations and other utilities, it can actually be pretty good overall performance. It still won't get you the raw speed of Clickhouse but instead you get all the functionality of Postgres (extensions, full SQL support, JSON, etc) and can avoid big ETL jobs.

Another PG extension is Citus which does scale-out automatic sharding with distributed nodes but is more generalized than Timescale for handing non-timeseries use-cases. Microsoft offers Citus on Azure.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#144

Post by Reelin »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #99

I really appreciate that the linked article uses the phrasing "source-available", the lower case "free", and doesn't use the phrase "open source". Terminology matters a lot. For me, a lot of the value in Free software comes from being able to make modifications to the software (either yourself, or by hiring others), and generally being in control of your own "software destiny". With that in mind, I think it's importa…

I second this. I'm quite puzzled by the apparent dislike for open source ideals expressed elsewhere in the comments here.

Licensing is a complex problem and open source isn't some magical solution. It isn't the right model for every usecase out there and that's OK! Pay to play is sometimes the only fair and workable approach from a business perspective, but that doesn't make it open source. There's nothing wrong with that though!

Using terminology correctly is important. Timescale gets the terminology right and I appreciate that. (I also think it's awesome that they're releasing this product for free.)

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#145

Post by ensignavenger »

mfreed wrote: post #130
JeremyNT wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there! We use and love Timescale, so we've been paying attention to this feature. We currently use the open source version and it's very nice. Would you mind clarifying a bit, because the blog post doesn't really explain: how much of TS do you expect to remain Open Source versus proprietary? Is the idea here that you will switch the entire project to this new license (i.e., this means you're killing the open sourc…

Hi JeremyNT: We've never "changed" any Apache-2 licensed code to TSL-licensed code. And in fact, we've recently basically eliminated most of our enterprise features (read: paid only) and converted them to community features (read: free under the TSL). So I'm curious: Why do you use only the Apache-2 version of TimescaleDB rather than the Community version? https://www.timescale.com/products/features (I realize that I…

Proprietary usually mean "not Open Source".

Not JeremyNT, but from my perspective, avoiding vendor lock-in is my number one reason to favor open source software. Avoiding vendor lock in is very important to me when I am evaluating options.

Just because your business model and my business model currently align, does not guarantee that they will always align. I don't want you to be stuck being my vendor if I am not a good customer for you- and I don't want to be stuck using you as my vendor if you are no longer able or willing to provide the product I need.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#146

Post by Reelin »

zrail wrote: post #11
eloff wrote: post #4

This is an interesting window into their business model. This could be a purely an altruistic decision, which businesses sometimes do, contrary to popular belief. More likely it's a bet that wider adoption from making the clustered version free will drive more revenue through their managed database as a service offering. Which shows that their non-OSI open-source license is actually leading to more code and features…

> I think we're too hung up on OSI open source licenses. Where "we" is defined as an extremely vocal minority on HN. I don't think most people take issue with licenses like this Timescale license or the BSL.

I don't think (most) people take issue with source available licenses per se, but rather attempts to misapply the term open source to them. The Timescale license is great if it allows them to provide source code and a free product while still operating a successful business! That doesn't make it open source though. (And to their credit, Timescale doesn't make that claim.)

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#147

Post by imhoguy »

nojvek wrote: post #64
akulkarni wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Timescale CEO and post author) You are spot on. Before the Timescale License, we were left with a tough decision: do we open-source a feature so that everyone can have it for free OR do we close a feature so that the mega-clouds don't have access to it? We didn't like either of those options, which is why we created the Timescale License, which allows us to offer capabilities for free (and make the source code avail…

I admire the `except the cloud providers`. What GCP, Azure and AWS have done with paid Redis offerings make me curious what @antirez (Salvator) thinks about it. They're making billions off Redis while the core contributors get nothing. I guess they agreed to it by having their work as BSD licence. I do think there is a place for royalty based software. Free for personal and development use. For production use, you pa…

On the other hand it is unlikely Redis would be so popular if it stared as paid software.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#148

Post by Reelin »

eloff wrote: post #26
CameronNemo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we're too hung up on OSI open source licenses. I disagree. The free software criteria were defined as they are for a reason. AWS and other cloud vendors are taking advantage, but that is not a good reason to give up on the ideals of the movement. I would be much more comfortable contributing to timescaledb if the license had a date at which it expired to AGPL or some other OSI/DFSG/fourfreedoms license.

Ideals for the sake of ideals doesn't resonate with me, in software or outside of it. Give me a practical reason. The expiry clause is interesting, but I'm not sure it matters in practice. Not many people want to use code several years out of date instead of the current version just because of practically no additional freedoms. Except maybe a potential competitor. I'd be happier to have a reversion to an OSI license…

> Give me a practical reason.

Your legal ability to apply patches to the software you run to better suit your needs, and in extreme cases to fork and continue development if the maintainers can't or won't accommodate your usecase. It's kind of the entire point of the open source movement.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#149

Post by zmj »

hinkley wrote: post #116
amenod wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I don't care if I can see the source code if I can't actually _do_ anything with it. If I can't run my modifications in production, it doesn't guard me against vendor lock-in and it doesn't give me the right-to-repair. So what's the benefit? Note that I am not arguing for OSS licences, but something like the Commons Clause (use freely, even for commercial use, repair as you wish, just don't sell) seems much mor…

I do. I don't think Java would have gotten anywhere if not for the fact that most of the source code was available. Trying to divine information about Windows from the header files was excruciatingly painful. Being able to step into the code and figure out why it doesn't like 0 in the third argument was a massive boost to my efficacy as a coder. I could add a guard and then file a very precise bug report to get the i…

Yep. I have had the same experience since the .NET ecosystem open-sourced.

Re: Multi-node TimescaleDB is now free

#150

Post by akulkarni »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #99

I really appreciate that the linked article uses the phrasing "source-available", the lower case "free", and doesn't use the phrase "open source". Terminology matters a lot. For me, a lot of the value in Free software comes from being able to make modifications to the software (either yourself, or by hiring others), and generally being in control of your own "software destiny". With that in mind, I think it's importa…

Thanks for drawing attention to Clause 2.1 (d).

The original intent of that clause was to avoid us needing to support modified versions that were deployed to production. (Note: We provide a lot of free support in our 4000+ member Slack channel [0].)

But that clause was written 1.5 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. There’s actually an internal debate right now on whether we need to keep it. So thank you and HN for spurring this discussion!

[0] https://slack.timescale.com/

Post reply on HN