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

CockroachDB license change

cockroachlabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 476 posts

Re: CockroachDB license change

#101

Post by mardifoufs »

notpushkin wrote: post #86
mardifoufs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way is postgres similar to cockroachdb? Except for being a database. Going by that standard you might as well say that Access is an alternative to postgres. Which it technically is but...

Cockroach marketed themselves as largely Postgres-compatible, so I guess there's that.

I guess that's true, I didn't think about that. But i think that you'd probably not be using cockroachdb if you were fine with what postgres offers. Cockroach might be compatible, but it really isn't "comparable" in terms of use cases and deployment imo. I might be totally wrong though, I have not been following it and Postgres closely since some time around 2021?

Re: CockroachDB license change

#102

Post by fweimer »

remram wrote: post #96
_benedict wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ASF requires a CLA for all regular contributors or large contributions, so I don’t think this is a particularly good barometer.

That's a good point. The ASF's FAQ [1] states that "All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge" and that it "is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation [2]", however I see no such specification in the linked incorporation. Is there some actual legal guarantee there? [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree [2]: ht…

I think it's mentioned in this document: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html

Re: CockroachDB license change

#103

Post by acedTrex »

andrewmutz wrote: post #53
AYBABTME wrote: post #28

I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if…

It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.

Open source and profit go together like oil and water

Re: CockroachDB license change

#105

Post by ezekg »

scblock wrote: post #17

Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source". "CockroachDB will remain source available under a new license" sounds correct but it's still sidestepping the question. And "the source code will still be available for viewing and contributions" is completely shit. Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Also, th…

> Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source".

CockroachDB hasn't been open source for over 5 years: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr...

Re: CockroachDB license change

#106

Post by JohnDeHope »

andrewmutz wrote: post #53
AYBABTME wrote: post #28

I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if…

It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.

Maybe we will have to replace "open source" with "spec driven". As you point out, open source can be just as bad as closed source, given future changes in direction by the project team. But "spec driven" means that anybody can come along and compete, and you can switch to them, regardless of how the original developers feel about it.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#107

Post by nindalf »

turtle_heck wrote: post #27
Icathian wrote: post #13

So the obvious question is, which big shops were using the Core version that ended up prompting this change? I know of one or two but I'm curious if there are some obvious big fish.

Weren't Oxide using CockroachDB?

Seems like. There are 5.2k hits in their codebase for "cockroach" (https://github.com/search?q=owner%3Aoxidecomputer+cockroach&...)

Re: CockroachDB license change

#108

Post by fweimer »

candiddevmike wrote: post #59
andrewmutz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.

Like other folks have said, anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA.

It depends on the CLA. In some countries, you cannot not have a CLA because there's always an implied contract.

Many CLAs are just a hassle (basically, DCO that has to be reviewed by the legal department). But a lot are asymmetrical in a substantial way and the original developer gets to play by different rules than the rest. CLAs in the second category tend to be problematic.

Even that is not a completely clear indicator because in some cases, the asymmetry is only intended to help with potential future relicensing in alignment with the project's goals, and not to enable commercialization (either today or at some point in the future). Some organizations have resisted direct commercialization of the code they have been entrusted with for decades, so that can happen even with an asymmetrical CLA.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#109

Post by JohnDeHope »

AYBABTME wrote: post #28

I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if…

> They may be nice folks today, but who knows who will run the place in 5y when the next round of squeeze comes?

The same idea applies to political questions. A politician I like is proposing a policy I approve of. Great! Now what happens in the next election cycle, when a politician I don't like gets to use that same power to do something I don't approve of? Woops.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#110

Post by 999900000999 »

red_admiral wrote: post #99
999900000999 wrote: post #44

I'm trying to figure out how this is better than Postgress ? Does it perform significantly better to justify the cost? Back in the day I worked heavily with databases and we always tilted towards open source.

CockroachDB is basically "run postgres on a cluster with more fault tolerance" - you can have machines (or entire datacenters) going down, netsplits etc. and as long as there's enough infra up to keep going, it will. Presumably only a small subset of postgres users really need this feature - and those that do, are big enough to need an enterprise licence.

I'll admit I haven't worked directly in this space in a good while, but the whole mystery terms really rubs me the wrong way .

For example if I have a company that provisions databases on behalf of my clients, is this 10 million revenue cap for my company, or for the clients themselves .

The pricing isn't even on the website for self hosting, I presume it's one of those if you need to ask you can't afford it type situations.

Plus you're locking yourself into a vendor that has no worries about changing its terms again later on.

>Required only during the trial period. Businesses that cannot accommodate telemetry may contact sales to request an exception. Paid use does not require telemetry.

From some of the industries I've worked in, this is a massive red flag. We don't want to give you telemetry at any point in our process.

Post reply on HN