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

81–90 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#81

Post by wyldfire »

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…

> 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

If you're calling your potential licensees leeches, you probably don't have Open Source in mind.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#82

Post by akx »

geofft wrote: post #43
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've been vocal in the past about using an OSI-approved license for one very specific practical reason: it gets you the ability to be packaged for Linux distros etc. that have policies that match the OSI definition (usually by having terms that match the OSI's current definition, not by delegating the decision to the OSI). In my opinion, that's important for adoption - not as important as it used to be in years past,…

With the release cadence of the current major distros vs the pace at which software is released, it doesn't seem to be worth it to get your stuff in the official repos, to quickly be several major versions behind.

You can package debs or rpms for easy install, host them on a server (or set up an apt/rpm repo) just fine even if they're not FOSS.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#83

Post by Drdrdrq »

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…

There is just one tiny little thing missing - the license is not generic. I believe a big driver for success of FOSS licenses is that you don't need a lawyer to use them (either as a user or as developer). We are seeing quite a few businesses using these "Cloud Protection Licenses", but they would all benefit if they agreed on a single, well understood legal document (or at least only a few of them, all generic).

I wonder if Commons Clause was just too early?

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#84

Post by mixedCase »

> Rights still disallowed under Timescale License

[...]

> No right to distribute modified Source

> No right to distribute modified Binaries, unless as part of a Value Added Product

Yeah given these restrictions the license doesn't even come close to the spirit of Open Source and it's laughable that they suggest otherwise.

Of course, they're well within their rights to do this and I wish them the best of luck doing business with people who are willing to entertain the use of a proprietary database (a term I wish they would embrace for the sake of honesty), but personally I could never use or recommend TimescaleDB in good conscience.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#85

Post by geofft »

As an aside, this article links to Wikipedia to insinuate that there's some ongoing problem with the OSI and it's likely to fade in importance. Wikipedia, in turn, mentions two recent problems. The first is that Bruce Perens left the OSI because they were considering approving a license that he thought wasn't open source - so this doesn't back up the idea that the OSI is too cautious with licenses and that the sentiment is shifting in the direction of accepting more licenses as "open source" than the OSI would want to.

The second is that ESR got banned from the mailing lists. If you believe his version of the story, it was because he spoke up in favor of keeping the OSD intact. If you believe the OSI's version of the story, it was because of his behavior. Yes, this was technically controversial (ESR seems to be extraordinarily good at having controversy follow wherever he goes), but again, neither interpretation backs up the idea that people want the OSI to be more liberal about licensing.

I think this Wikipedia section is all undue weight which could be justifiably removed, and I think it's weird that this post points to the (mutable) Wikipedia article to make its point.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#86

Post by rectang »

igneo676 wrote: post #80
mfreed wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bu…

Companies like TimeScale should call themselves "source available companies" in order to signal that they are offering some degree of access to the source (which is good!) while avoiding some of the by-now well-understood pitfalls of trying to commercialize FOSS offerings.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#87

Post by ivalm »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #74
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chec…

Timescaledb the company wants to make money from their managed service, thus they are protecting it from competition. That’s fine. They are not true open source but that’s fine too.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#88

Post by yandie »

mfreed wrote: post #22
btown wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also not a lawyer but it appears the bar is that "(2) the customer is prohibited, either contractually or technically, from defining, redefining, or modifying the database schema or other structural aspects of database objects, such as through use of the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces, in a Timescale Database utilized by such Value Added Products or Services." For Timescale this may not be as relevant, but I do…

Storing JSON or EAV-format data do not require DDL access, and are commonly deployed in many settings, from product/SaaS analytics, IoT, IT/APM monitoring, and others. That's actually one of the reasons we tried to frame it in terms of interfaces as well. (Thanks for the question/interest!)

Our data is binary with a complex format (protobuf). We have custom logic to merge these data points. I guess this would not be covered by the license then

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#89

Post by mosselman »

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-…

Sounds great thank you.

Are there any docs on non-k8s setups? Maybe with docker-compose?

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#90

Post by rabidrat »

rectang wrote: post #78
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…

Hard disagree. The OSI may have "Open Source" in its name, but we decide what "open source" means. And I agree with the 'spirit' of open source, which is based in RMS' inability to replace code on his printer. The right to study the code running on your hardware, the right to make modifications to it, the right to distribute those modifications.

This "it's not open-source unless you allow Amazon to profit from your charitable work" is horse hockey. I don't care if this is how a hardliner sees it. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive, and this is important enough that I support the migration of "open-source" to include these restrictions. Which, as they point out, affect none of the people using their code, and only the corporations (not people!) who would abuse the goodwill created by the Open Source movement.

Post reply on HN