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

An update to the Timescale license

blog.timescale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#71

Post by Drdrdrq »

mfreed wrote: post #20
mosselman wrote: post #17

I am probably wrong, as often is the case, but I seem to remember that High availability used to be in the enterprise tier. Now it is missing from the “software tier”. What am I missing? Is HA now free or not?

TimescaleDB (single-node) leverages Postgres features for HA (physical replication). It was never in the "enterprise tier", it fully works with the pure Apache 2 version. We also make available k8s helm charts that make it super easy to setup replicated clusters, including with mechanisms (Patroni) for automated failure detection and failover, and continuous incremental backup. That's also available under the Apache-…

Great job on the product! I was also very impressed with the support on slack channel, you guys rock!

One thing that I found confusing is that there is no clear explanation of the differences between the editions. Your answers are very clear and explain things nicely, but I would expect this information to be available on your site. Just a thumbs up. Keep up the good work!

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#72

Post by ensignavenger »

slashdev wrote: post #2

It would seem these folks listened to the criticism of their Timescale License here on HN and took it to heart. Right to repair, right to improve, and the gating of enterprise features were the only serious criticisms, and they've been addressed. I tip my metaphorical hat to them. I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license. Really the on…

The new Timescale License doesn't only restrict AWS, it restricts anyone not Timescale from offering management services for the Timescale Licensed code. It restricts customers who find that Timescale is unable or unwilling to support them in an agree-able manner from paying some one else to manage it for them.

All that is fine and dandy- it is clear that Timescale is open-core, with an Apache-licensed core and proprietary components, just like gitlab and other products. (Timescale is a bit more generous with their proprietary code, though, so that's nice).

I will stick with strongly favoring building on open source code, myself, despite this generous offer of no-fee license to use their proprietary software.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#73

Post by cbaleanu »

mfreed wrote: post #9
sytse wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is certainly a great improvement in the license! Kudos to TimescaleDB. I wonder if the new license allows us to offer services on top of TimescaleDB in a multi-tenant setting. GitLab.com has metric monitoring https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/operations/metrics/ and we're considering using TimescaleDB to store these. We would not offer direct access to the database. The relevant section in the license https://www.times…

I posted below, but an important check really is the definition of the "Value Added Product or Service". https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-3-10-value-... On its face, it sounds like your use case is totally allowed under the TSL (and in fact, since the TSL was initially launched in Dec 2018). We have plenty of users who build commercially-available monitoring products/services on top of TimescaleDB. Ha…

And that is why HN is my favorite part of the net for about a decade now :)

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#74

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #47
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really the only practical limitation that I can see now is if you're AWS you can't launch a competing service with Timescale by leeching off their software without paying for it. That's a glaring short-coming of FOSS licenses that really should be addressed Then use AGPL?

How does AGPL address this?

The original problem was Amazon "leeching off their software without paying for it". If Amazon shares their changes (as the AGPL requires), then they're contributing, not leeching. If the problem is just that Amazon happens to use a product, or horror of horrors, offer a hosted version... I dunno, I just can't see what the issue is. Is every developer upset about people profiting off their work sending a monthly check to Linus Torvalds for using Linux, Apple for clang and/or GNU for gcc, and the maintainers of their distro of choice? Or is only their software that nobody else is allowed to make money off of?

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#75

Post by mfreed »

igneo676 wrote: post #61
ramses0 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... The litmus test has always been: "while you may not want your software used in a weapon of mass destruction (or other purpose you don't agree with), it is not free software / open source unless it can be used for that purpose" ... those are items…

This. It boils down to "words mean things". They're fine being firmly on the side of proprietary-with-some-preservation-of-rights; it is _their_ code after all. Their customers get to decide what level of rights they're happy with putting up with. They're not Open Source. They're not Free Software. Being part of those communities requires following the norms of those communities.

Appreciate the sentiment. We try pretty hard to be careful to not describe the Timescale Licensed code as Open Source, and typically refer to it as "source available".

Of course, a big portion of our code is licensed under Apache 2, which clearly does qualify.

From the Timescale License, for example:

https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-backgroun...

Thanks!

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#76

Post by manigandham »

I wish more vendors would move this way. The rise of cloud computing has made it clear that people want to buy services, not software licenses.

Too many (DB) vendors keep trying to sell licenses with a heavy sales process, and barely have a working cloud offering while complaining about AWS.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#77

Post by eloff »

ramses0 wrote: post #56
slashdev wrote: post #2

It would seem these folks listened to the criticism of their Timescale License here on HN and took it to heart. Right to repair, right to improve, and the gating of enterprise features were the only serious criticisms, and they've been addressed. I tip my metaphorical hat to them. I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license. Really the on…

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... The litmus test has always been: "while you may not want your software used in a weapon of mass destruction (or other purpose you don't agree with), it is not free software / open source unless it can be used for that purpose" ... those are items…

That's a reasonable, if somewhat puritan position, I just think it's not one you should build a company around. If you're considering an OSI open source license for your main product today, don't make that mistake, it may kill your company. I want to point out that having a healthy company behind a product makes it more valuable to its users, regardless of how it's licensed.

If you have no interest in building a business around your product, because it's a labor of love or not central to your company, then by all means use a FOSS license. Apache 2 is a great choice.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#78

Post by rectang »

slashdev wrote: post #2

It would seem these folks listened to the criticism of their Timescale License here on HN and took it to heart. Right to repair, right to improve, and the gating of enterprise features were the only serious criticisms, and they've been addressed. I tip my metaphorical hat to them. I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license. Really the on…

> I'm curious to see if some vocal people here will still not be satisfied with anything short of a OSI-approved FOSS license.

I don't have a problem with the terms of their license. Use whatever license you want — just don't call it "open source"!

From the blog post... This is problematic:

> open-source in spirit

It ain't. It is firmly in the spirit of "source available" licenses, which have a decades-long history and almost all of which do the same thing this license does: impose a field-of-use restriction to limit commercial competition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

By corrupting the term "open source", they are leeching off of the goodwill created by the Open Source movement, and they shouldn't expect people to stop complaining about it until they stop.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#79

Post by mfreed »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #70
mfreed wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AGPL allows Amazon to offer a competing service. It just needs to be open-source. But the cloud vendor's efforts aren't typically with the software itself -- they often run the open-source version unmodified -- but rather with the operations and systems around the software. Mongo's SSPL was trying to block this case by forcing folks to open-source all their surrounding infra (which likely AWS would never do), but…

> The AGPL allows Amazon to offer a competing service. It just needs to be open-source. Sure, but if the problem is "leeching off their software without paying for it", then being obligated to share their changes should fix the "leeching" bit. I mean, is Amazon leeching off Linux by shipping it on all their devices?

My own perspective is that companies should probably stop saying that "if only Amazon would contribute back the occasional patch, everything would be fine."

If much of the future is cloud, then getting the hyper-scalars to contribute occasional patches doesn't solve the problem of competition.

That's reflected in our post:

    Some may ask, “Why create a new license - why not just compete
    with public clouds by just providing the best product experience
    on a level playing field?”

    The problem is that the playing field is far from level.
    Today, the public cloud vendors (Amazon, Microsoft, Google)
    are trillion dollar corporations – the largest companies in
    the world – and have a myriad of advantages that arise from
    that size, including market position, pricing power, deep
    balance sheets, and (what many have even called) unfair
    business practices. They lock large customers into prepaid, 
    discounted, multi-year enterprise-wide agreements, and give
    startups $100,000s of free credits.
Now, non-profits like the Linux Foundation are not trying to solve for this same problem.

But I think that the tech and innovation ecosystem would be much for the worst if everybody else is hamstrung when competing in the cloud, or else just have to go fully closed source and proprietary.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#80

Post by igneo676 »

mfreed wrote: post #75
igneo676 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It boils down to "words mean things". They're fine being firmly on the side of proprietary-with-some-preservation-of-rights; it is _their_ code after all. Their customers get to decide what level of rights they're happy with putting up with. They're not Open Source. They're not Free Software. Being part of those communities requires following the norms of those communities.

Appreciate the sentiment. We try pretty hard to be careful to not describe the Timescale Licensed code as Open Source, and typically refer to it as "source available". Of course, a big portion of our code is licensed under Apache 2, which clearly does qualify. From the Timescale License, for example: https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-backgroun... Thanks!

My comment was more directed toward the grandparent, which had their own set of comments regarding Open Source software. By and large, I'm happy with the announcement and how you're handling these terms carefully.

My only nitpick is the repeated statement of:

> a source-available license that was open-source in spirit

Which, um, it's not. I understand you're trying to thread a needle here and protect your business but it's not following the "spirit" of the community. You're removing a rather fundamental freedom by introducing your own license. That's rather antithetical to the whole idea of Open Source

Post reply on HN