Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

grafana.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 578 posts

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#171

Post by SSLy »

watermelon0 wrote: post #147
blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

I have a question regarding AGPL, that I couldn't answer by Googling or reading the license. Let's say that Postgres server is licensed under AGPL, and I modify it to my needs. I have a closed source web application, that is publicly accessible, and uses Postgres for storing data. a) Do I need to publish source code of my version of Postgres? b) Does my application (which relies on Postgres, and my patches) need to a…

1) Yes 2) Nope

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#172

Post by akulkarni »

gibba999 wrote: post #129
akulkarni wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Timescale founder) We actually designed the Timescale License to be _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. It just prevents public clouds from offering TimescaleDB-aaS.

And ergo, I'd never use TimescaleDB. It's not less restrictive in any objective sense; it has different restrictions. It's apparently less restrictive to you, but it's much more restrictive to me. Why not toss in an AGPL license option? You wouldn't be discounted off-the-bat by folks like me. I build open source. Timescale is not open source. Timescale won't mix with GPL code. I use plenty of GPL code. GPL/AGPL are k…

We do offer an Apache 2 only binary of TimescaleDB which includes our open source core (and excludes the Timescale Licensed features). In fact, many companies (Azure, Digital Ocean, Ali Baba, etc) offer this Apache 2 version to their customers.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#173

Post by judofyr »

staticassertion wrote: post #161
judofyr wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables. […] It's a very measured and thoughtful way to ensure the long term progress and continuity of these projects. Ahem: Grafana Labs Brings In $50M Series B For Open-Source Developer Platform: https://news.crunchbase.com/news/grafana-labs-brings-in-50m-... I compl…

> Now they need the relicensing in order for the business model to remain viable. This is exactly what the parent is saying though. They're going through this process to ensure that their business remains viable and they can continue to build and support the project.

I still think this sentence here is not quite precise enough:

> All of the most important software of our lifetime is going through this relicensing effort as the creators attempt to capture the value of what it enables.

To me this sounds like the relicensing is done so that a few programmers finally can get paid for their hard labor while maintaining critical software we're all using. What's actually happening here is that some creators have convinced a few investors that they'll be able to give a huge return on invest by building up a sales department around the product. And now the realize that they're not able to accomplishing that with their original license.

It's a perfectly acceptable business strategy, but it's not necessarily the only way of running an open source project.

I'm still hoping that we (the open source community) can find even better ways of ensuring high-quality software remain open source without being so dependent on current mindset of investors.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#174

Post by mikepurvis »

lacker wrote: post #103
bostik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your choice of counterexamples highlights an important aspect. Three of the four are in fact outliers: Kubernetes and Android are both financially backed by Google. Android as a strategic advantage across a global market, Kubernetes as a plumbing layer enabling more businesses operate logically like Google. Sure, it's a CNCF product since 2016 or so, but it still enjoys Google's backing. Postgres? They have a very sp…

Three of the four are in fact outliers: Kubernetes and Android are both financially backed by Google. Is that really "outlier" behavior? More and more important open source projects are prominently backed by a single large tech company. React, TensorFlow, TypeScript, Go, etc. If you just look at the last decade, there has been more important work done as "single-sponsor open source" than under the GPL.

So TypeScript is Microsoft, and React is Facebook, but all the rest of those are Google. Shouldn't we be a bit concerned about that?

Like, it seems like it should be fine, given that TensorFlow is part of their core AI mission, and they're heavily invested in Go, and Android probably isn't going anywhere. But people once thought that Java and MySQL were safe in the hands of Sun, too.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#175

Post by ethbr0 »

cardanome wrote: post #162
lacker wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the four are in fact outliers: Kubernetes and Android are both financially backed by Google. Is that really "outlier" behavior? More and more important open source projects are prominently backed by a single large tech company. React, TensorFlow, TypeScript, Go, etc. If you just look at the last decade, there has been more important work done as "single-sponsor open source" than under the GPL.

A few monopolistic corporations having dictatorial power over key technologies is a dystopian nightmare. Those projects have ultimately the interests of the corporations in mind not of the users. Ever wonder why overcomplicated technical solutions are hyped so much? Why does everyone and their dog need to run Kubernetes? Why is it all Maschine Learning instead of good old fashioned methods that would do much better?…

If we want to bark up this tree, a larger problem is FAANG inventing technologies that assume you have equivalent baseline competency and maturity.

Which leads to companies that do not (eg no CICD or data architecture standard) adopting tools that assume they do (k8s & tensorflow).

(And yes, I realize this is because most folks who work at the former aspire to jump ship to the latter)

Say what you want about Microsoft, but they do a much better job of meeting the customer where they are (dumpster fire) instead of where Microsoft is.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#176

Post by pvorb »

blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

But if my proprietary SaaS only uses Grafana for monitoring but its key purpose is doing something else entirely, I can no longer use Grafana unless I also publish my SaaS under AGPLv3, right?

What if I release my own SaaS as AGPLv3? Do others, who rely on it, also have to license their software under AGPLv3? I think this kills many business cases.

Am I missing some key point?

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#177

Post by w4rh4wk5 »

watermelon0 wrote: post #147
blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

I have a question regarding AGPL, that I couldn't answer by Googling or reading the license. Let's say that Postgres server is licensed under AGPL, and I modify it to my needs. I have a closed source web application, that is publicly accessible, and uses Postgres for storing data. a) Do I need to publish source code of my version of Postgres? b) Does my application (which relies on Postgres, and my patches) need to a…

Assuming a client has no direct access to the Postgres server, I'd say you neither need to publish your changes to Postgres, nor put the web application under AGPL. Just because your web application uses Postgres as a storage for data, in a way it could also just use SQLite or MariaDB instead, does not make it a "derivative work". #notalawyer

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#178

Post by josephcsible »

macnale wrote: post #164
josephcsible wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll need to give your customers the source code you used to build Grafana. If your customers are just using it internally, then they have no new obligations. If they're letting customers of their own use it, then they have the same new obligations that you do.

Thank you for clarification. I read about Confluents decision about the license change. It looks like Confluent has opposite view than Grafana labs about AGPL. " Why didn’t Confluent use AGPL? AGPL doesn’t solve the problem we are trying to fix. AGPL allows cloud service providers to sell services using the exact software being licensed, and charge for it, without any limitation. This means the software developer has…

It sounds like Confluent doesn't get what the real problem is. There's 2 ways developers who also sell hosting end up losing all their market share to players like Amazon:

1. The big players like Amazon make custom, proprietary modifications to the software they're hosting, and since they're not technically distributing it, they don't have to release the changes, giving them an unfair advantage. This is the exact loophole that the AGPL closes.

2. Sometimes, the big players are just better/more efficient at hosting the exact same software the exact same way. There's nothing unfair or unethical about this; it's how the free market is meant to work that customers flock to them.

Confluent is trying to "fix" the second "problem", which rather than making anything more fair, just makes it unfair in their favor.

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#179

Post by edp »

watermelon0 wrote: post #147
blendergeek wrote: post #38

I applaud this decision. I would like to see all major SaaSS projects be AGPLv3. End users still have freedom to user, modify, and distribute the software. Cloud providers must share contributions. This is how I like it.

I have a question regarding AGPL, that I couldn't answer by Googling or reading the license. Let's say that Postgres server is licensed under AGPL, and I modify it to my needs. I have a closed source web application, that is publicly accessible, and uses Postgres for storing data. a) Do I need to publish source code of my version of Postgres? b) Does my application (which relies on Postgres, and my patches) need to a…

IANAL

a) postgres is not user facing, so no

b) there is no linking (as in compiler linking) between your application and postgres, so no

Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3

#180

Post by tzs »

rasz wrote: post #76
tamalsaha001 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does not seem to be the case. From [1] The difference between the AGPL and traditional GPL is simple: The AGPL seeks to close a "loophole" that allows a company or organization to modify GPL'ed software and use it to provide a service — but without actually distributing changes. So a company can take a package like, say, WordPress and modify the software significantly to sell a service — but hold back changes be…

Wasnt this solved with GPLv3 anti tivoization rules?

The anti-tivoization rules only apply if:

1. the software is conveyed in a "User Product", and

2. that conveyance occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of that product is transferred to the recipient.

A "User Product" is defined as 'either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling'.

In other words, it only covers software that is installed on actual physical hardware when that hardware is sold (or rented, etc) to the consumer.

For a sale of a service, it is completely out of scope.

This is probably the most misunderstood clause in GPLv3, with people thinking that it some sort of general anti-DRM clause. Almost everybody, for example, thinks that it is why you can't have GPLv3 code on the Apple app store, but because it only applies to conveyances that are part of the transaction by which you acquire your iPhone or iPad it in fact does not apply to software purchased later from the app store. Apple's app store DRM is perfectly compatible with GPLv3.

The incompatibility between the app store and GPL is that the license agreement for the app store says you won't redistribute the app or reverse engineer it. GPL does not allow adding additional license restrictions like that, and so you can't satisfy both the app store license and GPL.

Post reply on HN