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

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#91

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

ivalm wrote: post #87
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed. I don't mind companies selling proprietary software. I do mind companies trying to claim that they're offering open source software when they're actually offering source-available software. With the Apache2 version, Timescale actually appears to be doing both, but I can't find a description of the differences so I can't comment very well; I assume they're doing open core. Which, again, is fine as long as you don't try and pretend that you're doing something else.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#92

Post by mindcrime »

fastball wrote: post #57
mindcrime wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dog in this fight, so to speak, as I'm not a user of Timescale. All I'll say is that I hate to see license proliferation in general, and I don't think people should refer to things as "Open Source" if they aren't using an OSI compliant license. To me, if I see a project that's us…

> because I don't know what the license permits That's why you read it...

Yes, and then, if I'm smart, spend time and money discussing it with attorneys and/or other experts, who will probably tell me that they don't know either, because there is no body of case law concerning this new and unique "special snowflake" of a license..., etc, etc.

Of course I could just "wing it", read through it, and work off my layman's interpretation and hope for the best. Or.. I could choose to stick to well understood and well known licenses that already exist.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#93

Post by stavros »

rabidrat wrote: post #90
rectang wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

I would tend to agree. Saying "our software is free for anyone to do anything they want with, except Amazon to profit from" may not be free in letter, but I certainly see it free in spirit.

I fear we're letting perfect be the enemy of the good here, and letting the FOSS ecosystem wither and lose incalculable value by letting trillion-dollar corporations exploit the hard work of people for free. If the choice is between "cheap Timescale on AWS run by Amazon" and "slightly less cheap Timescale on AWS run by Timescale", I'll take the latter.

I think banning FAANG from competing with the single source of revenue these FOSS companies have is a small price to pay to ensure a thriving FOSS ecosystem, and I think insisting on absolute freedom is killing the ecosystem.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#94

Post by rectang »

rabidrat wrote: post #90
rectang wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

You'd be in good company with Microsoft circa 2001 with their (source-available) Shared Source Initiative, because your argument is the same one that people have been making back then and ever since: that banning field-of-use restrictions imposes too much of a burden on commercial entities.

But disallowing such field-of-use restrictions is exactly what makes open source collaboration between otherwise competing companies possible. It is a fundamental difference between Open Source and Source Available licenses.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#95

Post by stavros »

rectang wrote: post #94
rabidrat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

You'd be in good company with Microsoft circa 2001 with their (source-available) Shared Source Initiative, because your argument is the same one that people have been making back then and ever since: that banning field-of-use restrictions imposes too much of a burden on commercial entities. But disallowing such field-of-use restrictions is exactly what makes open source collaboration between otherwise competing compa…

Can you elaborate? What collaboration do you mean?

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#96

Post by Spivak »

rabidrat wrote: post #90
rectang wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

I'm really surprised that people are trying to make open source something it's not because closed source has become such a boogyman. There is a very real practical need for companies that write software to use Copyright to protect their business -- there's nothing evil about it! It's what Copyright is for!

This kind of "screw the big guys" is something I can totally get behind -- power to them for setting the terms of their relationship with them but it's not and shouldn't be open source. And that should be okay. The right to run a piece of software for any purpose whatsoever is fundamental to the spirit of open source.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#97

Post by orlandohill »

If anyone is interested in using a source-available license for their own code, the Polyform Project has a set of standardized, source-available licenses. https://polyformproject.org/

PolyForm Shield would probably achieve the same result as the Timescale License. https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#98

Post by EvanAnderson »

ensignavenger wrote: post #72
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 propr…

> 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.

It restricts Customers from going to a Timescale-as-a-Service provider, but I don't see how it restricts the Customer from contracting to have a third-party support the Customer's Timescale installation (or to make changes to the codebase as a work-for-hire).

I agree w/ your assessment of their new license insofar as it being proprietary. Their old proprietary license made the product unacceptable for my use, but I am comfortable with the limitations to my rights with the new proprietary license. It has enough "right-to-repair" and ability to avoid vendor lock-in to make me feel comfortable that I could maintain a private fork of my use case was dependent on their software.

Edit:

My first paragraph was a quick-and-dirty. The child post is absolutely right. The license restricts Customers from providing Timescale-as-a-Service services.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#99

Post by GordonS »

rectang wrote: post #86
igneo676 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL.

The TSL actually lets you do a lot - almost anything, really. It's an open source license (I even used little o's!) that is designed to only prevent cloud providers from selling TimescaleDB as a service.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#100

Post by boogies »

rabidrat wrote: post #90
rectang wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

What about the AGPL?

Wouldn’t it grant “the right to study the code running on your hardware, the right to make modifications to it, the right to distribute those modifications” and provide protection from FAANG profiting without reciprocating, while being OSI and FSF approved?

Post reply on HN