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

191–200 of 210 posts

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#191

Post by eloff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #185
slashdev wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it is a picking a fight at all, and I'm petty sure that's counter to their intentions. I really don't get why some people get upset here. Nobody is saying it is OSI open source. But it's the next closest thing, so a comparison is natural and effective communication.

> But it's the next closest thing That's not meaningful; there's a reason why the FSF and OSI have very similar criteria that end up being essentially identical in practical application; the value associated with F/OSS isn't on a smooth continuum that varies with proximity to those definitions, there's a very sharp cliff near the edge and this is outside of it. That other actors are free to commercially exploit, incl…

> they just need to stop trying to convince the Open Source community that they are somehow pragmatically equivalent to Open Source

But it is nearly functionally identical, that's the fact of the matter. It's open source with one tiny restriction that matters to nearly nobody. That sounds pragmatically equivalent to me, from the definitions of those words. I find your claim more dishonest than theirs on that basis. You're trying to say it's a far cry from open source, and that's just not the case.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#192

Post by eloff »

brainless wrote: post #160
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…

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 b…

I think fundamentally open source has to evolve to reflect the new realities of the cloud world, or it will cease to be relevant for commercial software. And maybe that's fine, maybe open source becomes something only used for non commercial software with no profit angle behind it. And some new thing closer to this timescale license will replace it in the for profit but still open domain.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#193

Post by JoshTriplett »

_msw_ wrote: post #167
JoshTriplett wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SSPL has at least some hope of potentially being a viable FOSS license; the disagreements around that license were around details and implementation, not necessarily critical unfixable issues. Something like the Timescale license fundamentally can never be a FOSS license.

I don't agree, Josh. Certainly not v1 (which, AFAIK, is the only version in use). I doubt v2 could gain broad support either.

I'm not suggesting it could trivially become an OSI-approved license. Rather, I think it's much closer in spirit than something like the Timescale or "Commons Clause" or similar licenses, that blatantly discriminate against fields of endeavor (OSD 6) by design. The SSPL, by contrast, is a copyleft license that has a much stronger copyleft than the AGPL. It may potentially be overstepping the intent of what the OSD means to allow, but it doesn't on its face violate the spirit of any of those clauses, not any more so than the AGPL does. I think it'd be possible to modify the SSPL into a version that could meet that agreement while maintaining the intent of the license.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#194

Post by dragonwriter »

eloff wrote: post #191
dragonwriter wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's the next closest thing That's not meaningful; there's a reason why the FSF and OSI have very similar criteria that end up being essentially identical in practical application; the value associated with F/OSS isn't on a smooth continuum that varies with proximity to those definitions, there's a very sharp cliff near the edge and this is outside of it. That other actors are free to commercially exploit, incl…

> they just need to stop trying to convince the Open Source community that they are somehow pragmatically equivalent to Open Source But it is nearly functionally identical, that's the fact of the matter. It's open source with one tiny restriction that matters to nearly nobody. That sounds pragmatically equivalent to me, from the definitions of those words. I find your claim more dishonest than theirs on that basis. Y…

>But it is nearly functionally identical, that's the fact of the matter

No, its not. Its superficially similar (in much the same way that, say, the Constitution of the USSR was superficially similar to a liberal democratic constitution), but not having key commercial uses reserved for a rent-seeking copyright owner is central to the function of F/OSS.

> It's open source with one tiny restriction that matters to nearly nobody.

It matters to lots of people; sure, very few people are likely to directly exercise it, but that others are free to exercise it is central to the value proposition of open source for other users.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#195

Post by eloff »

dragonwriter wrote: post #194
eloff wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they just need to stop trying to convince the Open Source community that they are somehow pragmatically equivalent to Open Source But it is nearly functionally identical, that's the fact of the matter. It's open source with one tiny restriction that matters to nearly nobody. That sounds pragmatically equivalent to me, from the definitions of those words. I find your claim more dishonest than theirs on that basis. Y…

>But it is nearly functionally identical, that's the fact of the matter No, its not. Its superficially similar (in much the same way that, say, the Constitution of the USSR was superficially similar to a liberal democratic constitution), but not having key commercial uses reserved for a rent-seeking copyright owner is central to the function of F/OSS. > It's open source with one tiny restriction that matters to nearl…

I disagree completely. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but I just don't. I think we have irreconcilable viewpoints here, and there's no further discussion possible.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#196

Post by ensignavenger »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #98
ensignavenger wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

The inability to maintain a public fork is another strike against the Timescale License. If the company were to shut down or move in a different direction, a community could not form to maintain a fork that meets that communities needs.

If these terms are acceptable to you, that is great, but I find the unpalatable for core infrastructure I would be investing substantially to build on top of.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#197

Post by ensignavenger »

doctor_eval wrote: post #106
EvanAnderson wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).…

As I understand it, it doesn’t restrict customers from going to a TSAAS provider, it simply means that if you want to provide TSAAS then you need to negotiate a different license from Timescale. The only restriction is that you can’t (necessarily) provide TSAAS for free. To me that’s free as in speech but not free as in beer, and is well within my personal understanding of “free software”. As the saying goes, the rig…

Anyone could theoretically negotiate a different license with any software vendor... that's not a feature of the license they are generally offering the software under, its a feature of the legal system of contracts.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#198

Post by henryfjordan »

orlandohill wrote: post #171
henryfjordan wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 change…

I did read it carefully, and provided thoughtful feedback.

> Any purpose is a permitted purpose, except for providing any product that competes with the software or any product the licensor or any of its affiliates provides using the software.

> Goods and services compete even when provided free of charge. If you market a product as a practical substitute for the software or another product, it definitely competes.

If I use your software and find a bug, I am prohibited from hosting a fork with a fix for the bug on Github as it would clearly be a practical substitute for the original.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#199

Post by mindcrime »

fastball wrote: post #176
mindcrime wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fair. And if there's a market for this kind of license, then it will catch on. And if it does, then so be it. I doubt it's a license I'd use, but I don't begrudge these guys any success they have.

Re: An update to the Timescale license

#200

Post by henryfjordan »

orlandohill wrote: post #178
CodesInChaos wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

If I use the software, then the creator expands their business to compete with me, I can never update the software again.

Maybe this is software meant to work over the network and a security vulnerability is discovered. The license says I am stuck running a version with vulnerabilities until I can figure out how to use a different project. That's a deal-breaker.

Post reply on HN