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

521–530 of 578 posts

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

#521

Post by tremon »

goodpoint wrote: post #511
goodpoint wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a) is wrong: users are not connecting directly to PG

Why the silent downvotes. If users do not directly use PG it's not an issue.

The license does not include the phrase "connect directly". It says if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network [..] an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version

"interacting with it remotely through a computer network" may include several hops, the text is unclear at this point. And there is precedent for this interpretation, Microsoft uses the same concept (as "multiplexing") in their SQL Server license terms: https://download.microsoft.com/download/3/D/4/3D42BDC2-6725-... (pdf, from [1], should the document link change in the future).

[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/licensing/learn-more/volume-...

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

#522

Post by cutemonster »

varajelle wrote: post #442
leeoniya wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i wonder how much of that original Kibana code remains today (my guess is not very much), and if it were originally AGPL, would a completely rewritten codebase still be subject to it?

The license talk about derived work. And even if every line of code has been changed, it is still a derived work as it was progressively changed. So pattern and desings from the original are still in use. The Ship of Theseus is still the Ship of Theseus.

> it is still a derived work as it was progressively changed.

I think that depends. If it was progressively changed to something completely different, then, no.

Let's say in 10 days you replaced 10% of the code, with the same amount of code from a different program by another author. During those 10 days there'd be compilation errors, and thereafter the original work and copyright would be all gone (except for in old revisions in the repo), and the copyright holder of the new program could license it however s/he wanted.

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

#523

Post by DetroitThrow »

cevian wrote: post #419
foerbert wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole issue arose from the claim that the Timescale license was designed to be less restrictive then the AGPL. That's why Open Source came up in the first place - pointing out that one of the basic reasons for the Timescale license to exist in the first place is to restrict one of the major reasons Open Source licenses exist.

That only makes sense if you agree with the open source foundation definition of restrictive. I don't. I think the ability to freely link to whatever other software is much more important to most people than the ability to run a *aaS. We never made any claims about open source only our opinion about what restrictive means to us.

>That only makes sense if you agree with the open source foundation definition of restrictive.

I think Timescale employees should remember to preface "This is our belief on the definition of restrictive" when describing the license as more open than open source licenses, given much of the community might disagree (sometimes vehemently) about that take.

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

#524

Post by detaro »

DetroitThrow wrote: post #523
cevian wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only makes sense if you agree with the open source foundation definition of restrictive. I don't. I think the ability to freely link to whatever other software is much more important to most people than the ability to run a *aaS. We never made any claims about open source only our opinion about what restrictive means to us.

>That only makes sense if you agree with the open source foundation definition of restrictive. I think Timescale employees should remember to preface "This is our belief on the definition of restrictive" when describing the license as more open than open source licenses, given much of the community might disagree (sometimes vehemently) about that take.

Or scope it as "less restrictive for most users" or something along those lines.

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

#525

Post by ahachete »

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…

The AGPL is a free software license. This implies that guarantees the well-known freedoms. Among them, there is the freedom to modify software for your own use.

As long as you don't exposed this modified version of a hypothetical AGPL-ed Postgres to the end users, it is considered your own use, where you are free to do anything you want, including using it as the data store for a web application.

If you would however expose this modified AGPL-ed Postgres as a DBaaS, in this case you will need to offer as AGPL your changes to the users. But this was not your case.

So the answer is clearly NO to both questions.

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

#526

Post by ex_amazon_sde »

rakoo wrote: post #513
ex_amazon_sde wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The freedom of users is more important than the freedom of developers. This is misleading. All developers are users as well. Having to use closed source services and tools impacts us a lot.

No, developers are not always users. I might be working on an accounting software for a big company and never use it. In that case the (A)GPL guarantees that the company is in control of their data and processes.

> I might be working on an accounting software for a big company and never use it.

Obviously. But you are using other FOSS directly or indirectly.

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

#527

Post by rattray »

akulkarni wrote: post #172
gibba999 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh cool! I see this is addressed in your FAQ:

> TimescaleDB is a relational database for time-series, with some features licensed under the Apache 2.0 License but many of the features you know and love are licensed via the Timescale License (including continuous aggregates, compression, data retention policies, actions, multi-node, and more). The "Apache 2.0" version of TimescaleDB offered by Microsoft, Digital Ocean, and others includes only the features in the Apache license. The Timescale License prohibits cloud providers from offering the "community version" of TimescaleDB-as-a-service.

But I don't find any links to download the Apache 2.0 version, there or elsewhere…

By the way, I really hope you guys are able to strike a deal with the cloud providers for them to re-sell Timescale Licenses, so people can get all the great features and pay you without having to add a new vendor relationship!

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

#528

Post by dkarras »

__david__ wrote: post #337
dkarras wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious about how the GPL is not viral... Unless you go through the hoops of making sure GPL code is sectioned (through a shared library or whatever) in your codebase, then your software becomes GPL, no? I mean sometimes you can avoid it so that the GPL project stands at an arms length to your own code but it is not always trivial. You just don't get to include the code in your project and not get "infected". The fac…

Your software never "becomes" GPL, no matter what. That's the problem with the "viral" label, it's somewhat of a misnomer that implies that anything that comes into contact with it gets infected and suddenly all your private IP _has_ to be released and anyone can just take it an fork it. In reality, your proprietary code can only be GPLed if you explicitly release it under that license. What people are confusing is t…

Sorry I still don't get it. Please tell me which step I am getting wrong:

I have my own proprietary code. I decide to make use of GPL code. Then I distribute the binaries. Now I have to make the source available, correct?

This source that was just made available (that includes my "proprietary code" and the GPL library I used) needs a license. At this step, I already lost my proprietary code and made it public - which might be unacceptable for some, but that in itself does not make GPL viral. Now that I need to license the released code, what options do I have? Can it be less permissive than GPL? My understanding has always been "no".

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

#529

Post by smichel17 »

open0 wrote: post #431
Seirdy wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of the point. The purpose of MIT/BSD is to enable nonfree derivative works; the purpose of the AGPL is to only allow free derivatives. AGPL maximizes freedom by prohibiting further restriction of it; it's a local maxima of "user freedom" as a function of "developer freedom". If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL.

> If you want to use AGPL software in your project, you're free to relicense under AGPL. And this condition is the reason that the answer will be "no" every time to using copyleft. Why would anyone ever choose a piece of software which, however you want to twist words, is actually less free in the sense of what it permits and will have less adoption as a result? I run some websites without ads used by thousands of pe…

"Are copyleft licenses more or less free than permissive licenses?" is a pathological nothingburger of an argument because there is no substantial point of disagreement, except on priors, which are never discussed.

Take slavery, or indentured servitude. Nobody seriously argues (any more) that laws against these practices decrease freedom, although they technically restrict the freedom of would-be slave owners. Likewise, if "proprietary software is evil" is table stakes, then copyleft licenses are more free, period. There is no argument.

So, actually what we disagree on is "how unethical is proprietary licensing?" Arguing that permissive licenses are more free is really arguing that proprietary software isn't that bad.

Without having that argument, the other one just goes round and round I circles, like it always does.

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

#530

Post by dec0dedab0de »

nopzor wrote: post #404
jrochkind1 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure? The way I've understood it is part of the point of CLA's is to allow license changes, and that without them no license changes are possible to community projects. Because all the contributors own the copyright to the code they contributed, which they licensed under the existing license. To change the license you'd need to contact all the contributors and get permission (so okay, not impossible, jus…

anyone can change the license of apache software, without any permission. the right to do so is built into the apache license.

I thought the point of CLA's in general is to stop contributors from revoking their license, or claiming the entire program is a collaborative work and that they have joint copyright over all of it. I don't think either has ever happened in open source, but I believe is possible, at least in the US.
Post reply on HN