Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes open source helps. SQLite3 is a good example. Being open source (and very good) helped it become one of the -if not the- single most-used pieces of software in the world, but having a closed-source 100% branch coverage test suite helped establish a monopoly on development of SQLite3 and prevented hard forks. End result: big tech had to sign up for the SQLite Consortium. It's... not a unicorn, and I've not i…
Nitpick: SQLite is public domain[0], which is not open source[1]. [0] https://sqlite.org/purchase/license [1] https://opensource.org/node/878
Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
541–550 of 578 posts
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant section copypasted below: > If Kibana had been an AGPL project, would Grafana even exist? Are we being hypocritical? > I asked Torkel, and he said that If Kibana had been an AGPL project, Grafana would likely have been AGPL from day one. > This is of course a hypothetical question, so it’s difficult to determine how that would have affected subsequent business decisions the company might have made. > Making…
> IMHO, his answer doesn't address the GP’s point; that the original, permissive license inherited from Kibana arguably enabled the growth & survival of Grafana. Why's that? If Kibana had been AGPL and Grafana had been AGPL from day 1, how would the growth and survival of Grafana have been any different?
Then Grafana would be forced to open all the source code for Grafana Cloud Dashboards [1] according to AGPL derived from Kibana. I don't think they would follow this path.
The same applies to Prometheus [2] source code, which is used by Grafana Cloud Metrics [3] (aka Cortex) developed by Grafana labs. If Prometheus had been licensed under AGPL, then Grafana labs would be forced to open all the derived source code for Grafana Cloud Metrics.
These examples prove that Apache 2 license is much better for users and for commercial companies compared to AGPL. That's why we at VictoriaMetrics stick with Apache 2 license and have no plans to change it.
[1] https://grafana.com/products/cloud/features/#cloud-dashboard...
[3] https://grafana.com/products/cloud/features/#cloud-metrics
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#543Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do say it: > It’s important to note that this change does not prevent our users from using, modifying, or providing our open source software to others — provided, however, that under the AGPL license, users have to share source code if they are modifying it and making it available to others (either as a distribution or over a network). For distributors, AGPL has the same source code sharing requirements as GPL.…
It's still unclear to me if this also means things like custom dashboards, etc?
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#544Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#5451. Fork something Apache-licensed.
2. Build a community with "awesome" buzz.
3. Start a company, promising bells, and whistles.
4. Hire more and more people because bugs are piling up.
5. Now we need VC to fund all of that.
6. VCs are in charge now; they require "growth" and more paying customers.
7. Start using dark patterns. On the download page, hide the actual package download, redirect users to paying cloud or paying software version.
8. More frequent releases, more drastic redesigns, and changes. VCs need to see where the money goes.
9. VCs are still not happy. The company is spending more and more... relicense everything and force users to pay for the product.
Mongo, Elastic, now Grafana... TBH I don't have a problem with *GPL, but let's be honest: they are luring users and companies with permissive licenses, promising "forever" stupidities, then suddenly and silently change the rules. The funniest thing is that most of these projects started on something with apache license...
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AGPL license states > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compi…
If you're just exposing your grafana instance, no - and probably not if you're iframing them or similar. If you're actually embedding grafana into your program then yes, but that would be a strange way to structure a system.
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still unclear to me if this also means things like custom dashboards, etc?
I read AGPL as "if you need to clone the Grafana Git repository, change code (even just one line), then you need to open source your changes". If you write code without having to modify Grafana's code itself, then you don't need to open source that.
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the toxicity? AGPL was deemed by many to not be clear about what it was trying to accomplish. As I read in the various exchanges and articles around the time SSPL came out, I think they were just trying to clarify AGPL, not getting any more restrictive than AGPLs intent. And how would moving from a license that said you couldn't run a service bureau for free to something that says more clearly that you can't run…
Sorry you’re right, I was being petty. I’ll explain my perspective in hope that we can learn something from this, but being flippant like that wasn’t justifiable. That’s a lesson in itself! :) From my perspective, MongoDB (the company) “wins” by getting more people to purchase their product, and making MongoDB (the software) better is only one of the many possible dimensions to optimize in pursuit of this goal. When…
From reading all the press, it feels like MongoDB did not do this to garner more revenue but to instead prevent open-source parasites from causing MongoDB to lose money or even go out of business. When I read Eliot's posts in 2018, it feels like he's trying to stay in business, not be greedy.
From a commercial point of view, databases have been shown to need management. Maybe someday somebody will write a database that has a magic simple-to-use endpoint, stays up 100% of the time, and doesn't require a cadre of people dancing around the database chanting spells to operate it. None to date... So the cloud providers capitalize on that need, and wrap control planes around databases - often hurting the people who are working hard to innovate on that software - and deserve to be paid for their work.
As to harm to the open source ecosystem, cloud providers wrapping managed services around databases has been shown to stifle innovation on those open source products. I.e. why would anybody want to improve PostgreSQL or MySQL when Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL and MySQL exist, CloudSQL and Azure SQL all exist - and may or may not take the changes - and even when they do, it takes many months or years.
Finally, I guess I'm puzzled by your last two paragraphs.
You mention that "all the dev hours invested into MongoDB post 2018 likely will have been invested in vain" - why? They go into the community edition, which anybody can use. They go into the EA and Atlas version, which customers who want enterprise-quality software with enterprise-quality support can use.
Your discussion implies MongoDB's license (and Elastic and now a host of others) prevents people from contributing to MongoDB. It doesn't. Or that it prevents them using MongoDB as much as they want. It doesn't, with one exception - and that exception probably affects I personally love MongoDB and I think the SSPL ended up preserving the company and preserving innovation, which is good for the open source community. At least it's not a complicated mess like MySQL and MariaDB.
That said, I'd love to hear more about how SSPL actually damages anybody in a meaningful way. I haven't yet seen anything except a philosophical argument. I'd love to hear it.
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#549Earlier 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.
you state this as if it's a settled fact (it isn't).
If you take a Shakespeare novel and replace every word in it with another word, and then remove and add many chapters to it, then shuffle all the pages, is it still a Shakespeare work or even recognizable as being derived from one? I think most would say "no".
In the case of Ship of Theseus, if you replaced every part with a different looking part, removed 30% of the parts entirely and added another 300% parts such that the function was expanded by 1,000%, would anyone recognize it as the same thing?
There has to be _some_ threshold beyond which you cannot reasonably claim the work is derivative.
Re: Grafana, Loki, and Tempo will be relicensed to AGPLv3
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I kinda thought the whole idea behind open source is that no one company or group of companies/licensees gets privileged access to or control over the software, including any company that happens to have the same name as the piece of software. That is not, at all, the idea behind open source. The idea behind open source is, basically, 'you are free to do whatever you like with the source code, as long as you credit…
> There is nothing about companies, corporations, licensees, who has control, who has what name, etc. That’s exactly what I said.