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

171–180 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#171

Post by orlandohill »

henryfjordan wrote: post #156
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.

Please read the license terms carefully.

Distribution of the source code, modified or unmodified, would not be considered competition. On the contrary, it is an explicitly granted right. So, for example, forking on GitHub is allowed.

Distribution License

The licensor grants you an additional copyright license to distribute copies of the software. Your license to distribute covers distributing the software with changes and new works permitted by Changes and New Works License.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#173

Post by camkego »

sytse wrote: post #137
mfreed wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the clarification, glad to hear it is allowed.

It seems to me, herein lies the rub. No whether they can call it open source or not. I am sympathetic to Timescale's situation. (I also love their work) But the big problem IMO is this incredibly hard to judge language about "value-added products or services"

It doesn't really matter what is opined outside of the agreement, and from this conversation, it doesn't seem crystal clear one way or another whether Gitlab's use would be considered value-added or not.

So, do you want to be a developer, project-manager, CTO, or CEO who has to determine if your use of TimescaleDB is considered value-added or not?

Also keep in mind, that to really make this determination requires a court case around the specifics of your usage and situation.

And what if they get a SCO Unix style CEO someday?

I hope we can find a better way as developers and technologists to express whether you can use software like this without vague promises that you won't be litigated, or your use case is probably not in violation of the license.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#174

Post by CodesInChaos »

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/

I would not use any PolyForm Shield licensed software, since there is no guarantee that the provider will never expand their scope of business to compete with me.

The Perimeter variant might be usable, but only if competing with versions of the product I don't use is allowed (it's not clear to me if that's the case)

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#175

Post by GordonS »

mindcrime wrote: post #124
GordonS wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in general that reading licenses as a lay person can be problematic. In this case though, TimescaleDB has blog posts that describe the license in very plain language, and provide clear examples of what you can and can't do - you can basically do anything except provide it as a service. No need to "wing it".

It's really the general case that I'm interested in. Understanding and dealing with different licenses doesn't necessarily scale well, which is exactly why license proliferation is a Bad Thing. For those people who use Timescale and really like it, and are willing to read and understand this license and then use it, I say "Great!" But in general I find license proliferation to be undesirable and would generally encou…

Fair point, I agree with everything you've said here.

I do think there is a need for a TSL-like license though, and I think the solution is a new type of widely accepted and understood license, rather than individual companies inventing their own TSL-like licenses.

I have no idea how that could actually come to be though.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#176

Post by fastball »

mindcrime wrote: post #124
GordonS wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in general that reading licenses as a lay person can be problematic. In this case though, TimescaleDB has blog posts that describe the license in very plain language, and provide clear examples of what you can and can't do - you can basically do anything except provide it as a service. No need to "wing it".

It's really the general case that I'm interested in. Understanding and dealing with different licenses doesn't necessarily scale well, which is exactly why license proliferation is a Bad Thing. For those people who use Timescale and really like it, and are willing to read and understand this license and then use it, I say "Great!" But in general I find license proliferation to be undesirable and would generally encou…

The "standard licenses" you're talking about weren't standard until people actually started using them.

People can't start using licenses if you don't first write them.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#178

Post by orlandohill »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #174
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/

I would not use any PolyForm Shield licensed software, since there is no guarantee that the provider will never expand their scope of business to compete with me. The Perimeter variant might be usable, but only if competing with versions of the product I don't use is allowed (it's not clear to me if that's the case)

Please read the license terms carefully.

New Products

If you are using the software to provide a product that does not compete, but the licensor or any of its affiliates brings your product into competition by providing a new version of the software or another product using the software, you may continue using versions of the software available under these terms beforehand to provide your competing product, but not any later versions.

Discontinued Products

You may begin using the software to compete with a product or service that the licensor or any of its affiliates has stopped providing, unless the licensor includes a plain-text line beginning with Licensor Line of Business: with the software that mentions that line of business. For example:

Licensor Line of Business: YoyodyneCMS Content Management System (http://example.com/cms)

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#179

Post by Conan_Kudo »

copascetic wrote: post #142
boogies wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If Timescale were AGPL Amazon would be free to just run it as a service for profit and all they need to do is publish their modifications to it, if they make any. Amazon has no problem running all kinds of other open source software for profit, and this is what TSL is specifically designed to prevent.

But that's the trade: you either pay with time+effort or with money.

What everyone seems to miss here is that the GNU Affero General Public License offers the ability for people to make that choice. Cloud providers would be forced into an ugly situation if almost every single XaaS codebase switched to AGPL. Their business model depends on being able to make minor investments to provide things people want as a service and not share it with the community.

However, if the AGPL was normalized and used more often, cloud providers would be in a situation where they'd either have to A) build everything of theirs on their own if they don't like the license or B) use the software people want, release their improvements back to the community, and everyone benefits.

It's amazing how everyone has forgotten why Linux won over all the other server, mobile, and edge platforms, and is slowly inching to dominate everything else. The terms underlying most of the core Linux system software, including the kernel obviously, require things incorporating it to be released with usable sources to the public. That is what enabled individuals to sustain a project and make it into the successful juggernaut it is today.

But because Google has managed to poison the well with AGPL, we're in a situation today where "business-friendly" permissive licenses like the Apache Software License are used and companies are surprised when they get sucked dry by cloud providers abusing the properties of that license.

Companies building open source software should expect one of two things: money or code. Both are intrinsically quite valuable to them, and they should take care to nurture that those are the two valid options.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#180

Post by mcherm »

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 just want to point out that if Postgres had a similar license then Timescale wouldn't be able to offer their product as a service.
Post reply on HN