Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#1

Post by nserrino » Wed, May 05, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license
blog.px.dev

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#2

Post by nserrino » Wed, May 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

Pixie maintainer / OP here. There's a lot of debate right now about licensing in the open source community. We made the call to go with Apache 2.0, and the lead of our project wrote in the post about why we made that decision.

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#3

Post by jhgb » Wed, May 05, 2021, 9:33 PM UTC

Presumably a completely different Pixie from the open-source one at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pixie/ ?

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#4

Post by nserrino » Wed, May 05, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

jhgb wrote: post #3

Presumably a completely different Pixie from the open-source one at https://sourceforge.net/projects/pixie/ ?

Correct, this project is unaffiliated with that one.

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#5

Post by haolez » Wed, May 05, 2021, 9:58 PM UTC

A little off topic, but if you are going with mostly managed services and you don't use k8s, what would you do to have decent tracing and observability? I'm currently using a combination of FaaS and cloud queues, for example.

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#6

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 05, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#7

Post by remram » Wed, May 05, 2021, 11:46 PM UTC

nserrino wrote: post #2

Pixie maintainer / OP here. There's a lot of debate right now about licensing in the open source community. We made the call to go with Apache 2.0, and the lead of our project wrote in the post about why we made that decision.

And your CLA [1] does not reassign copyright, ensuring that you can't re-license later. Good on you!

[1]: https://github.com/pixie-labs/pixie/blob/main/CLA.md

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#8

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 06, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

remram wrote: post #7

nserrino wrote: post #2

Pixie maintainer / OP here. There's a lot of debate right now about licensing in the open source community. We made the call to go with Apache 2.0, and the lead of our project wrote in the post about why we made that decision.

And your CLA [1] does not reassign copyright, ensuring that you can't re-license later. Good on you! [1]: https://github.com/pixie-labs/pixie/blob/main/CLA.md

[deleted]

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#9

Post by pabs3 » Thu, May 06, 2021, 1:46 AM UTC

remram wrote: post #7

nserrino wrote: post #2

Pixie maintainer / OP here. There's a lot of debate right now about licensing in the open source community. We made the call to go with Apache 2.0, and the lead of our project wrote in the post about why we made that decision.

And your CLA [1] does not reassign copyright, ensuring that you can't re-license later. Good on you! [1]: https://github.com/pixie-labs/pixie/blob/main/CLA.md

The CLA gives permission to sublicense, but it isn't clear to me if this allows proprietary relicensing or not.

Re: Open sourcing Pixie under Apache 2.0 license

#10

Post by zasgar » Thu, May 06, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

pabs3 wrote: post #9

remram wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your CLA [1] does not reassign copyright, ensuring that you can't re-license later. Good on you! [1]: https://github.com/pixie-labs/pixie/blob/main/CLA.md

The CLA gives permission to sublicense, but it isn't clear to me if this allows proprietary relicensing or not.

Lead maintainer of Pixie here.

Pixie will remain licensed under Apache 2.0. We are also working on moving Pixie over to the CNCF, to maintain this guarantee. This is being tracked here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/651

In addition, we will likely move to a DCO (Developer Certificate of Origin). We are still trying to figure out the exact logistics, but this will allow commits to happen without signing a CLA.