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

151–160 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#151

Post by hitekker »

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…

> it's not following the "spirit" of the community.

Which community are you speaking for here? "Free Software" or "Open Source"? They are separate communities with a long history of rivalry between each other.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_Source_Initi...

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#152

Post by ifmpx »

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…

Then I'm afraid you're just wrong.

Open source is a well-defined term with a well-defined meaning. In fact, it was coined precisely because "Free Software" was considered to be too ambiguous.

Words have meaning. You can't just change the meaning of a well defined term to suite your views.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#153

Post by ericb »

danShumway wrote: post #123
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…

> but we decide what "open source" means Well, "we" in the Open Source movement decided that it means not restricting what users do with their code. I don't understand what's so hard about this. Overwhelmingly, the biggest players in the Open Source ecosystem have consistently been saying, "call it whatever you want, just be clear that you're not the same as us." And the response from a lot of people has been, "no, y…

> Well, "we" in the Open Source movement decided that it means not restricting what users do with their code.

The "GPL" is way more onerous. You see, one can only be truly unrestricted by being restricted into taking certain actions. Nothing Orwellian to see here.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#154

Post by SquishyPanda23 »

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…

You can't distribute changes to the source code. This is a read-only license.

That's both a practical limitation and a serious criticism of a company that markets itself as open source.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#155

Post by thristian »

ericb wrote: post #153
danShumway wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but we decide what "open source" means Well, "we" in the Open Source movement decided that it means not restricting what users do with their code. I don't understand what's so hard about this. Overwhelmingly, the biggest players in the Open Source ecosystem have consistently been saying, "call it whatever you want, just be clear that you're not the same as us." And the response from a lot of people has been, "no, y…

> Well, "we" in the Open Source movement decided that it means not restricting what users do with their code. The "GPL" is way more onerous. You see, one can only be truly unrestricted by being restricted into taking certain actions. Nothing Orwellian to see here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#156

Post by henryfjordan »

orlandohill wrote: post #97

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/

The PolyForm Shield license prohibits competition with the original project, but then goes on to define "competition"

> Goods and services compete even when provided free of charge

If you host your project on Github under this license and I fork it, then my Github page is competing with yours and I am therefore in violation.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#157

Post by detaro »

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?

Amazon contributing their changes (if they even do any) but taking the majority of hosting income doesn't fix the business model for the company making the software.

Linux has an entirely different scenario for the economics around it, so from the "does this work financially" perspective the comparison isn't all that helpful.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#158

Post by akulkarni »

geofft wrote: post #85

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 sentim…

This is a totally fair comment. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

I've removed the Wikipedia link and any mention of OSI "controversy".

However, I do believe sentiment is shifting (as can be seen in these comments), so I left that part in.

Thanks for helping us improve the post :)

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#159

Post by slashdev »

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…

I have a different take on this. It is open source in spirit. It has all the same freedoms of an OSI open source license with one restriction that matters to maybe half a dozen companies like AWS. Open source is the closest established concept to compare this to. So to say it's open source in spirit, or similar to open source seems to be a legitimate communication device.

That's like trying to describe a nectarine without talking about peaches or plums. You could do it, but you could communicate more effectively if you could make comparisons to the most similar well known concept.

They are somewhat careful to make the distinction and refer to it as source available, open source in spirit, etc. I think that's fine and legitimate communication.

Source available is a less controversial term, but it's also less descriptive. It can be a wide variety of software licenses. Whereas open source is much closer to this license. I don't see the problem here, how would you communicate it if you worked in their marketing department, if you're being honest?

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#160

Post by brainless »

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…

The definitions of almost everything in our lives change over time. I would want to be practical and live in a world where words don't only mean what they used to when they were created but also are revised.

Open source is a philosophy which I have always admired and it motivated my way of thinking. But I can not accept that a few large corporations want to apply their monopoly and scale to single handedly reap the benifits.

Stopping them is vitally important to preserve those exact freedoms that open source gives us.

The Open source movement was not created in an environment where there was such massive centralisation of computing resources and their financial implications. How do you know if the Open source movement itself wouldn't have started differently in an environment like today's?

Post reply on HN