311–320 of 476 posts
"4. Does this mean CockroachDB is no longer open source?
CockroachDB will remain source available under a new license. While the new license is a proprietary enterprise license, the source code will still be available for viewing and contributions."
I mean... "The answer is kinda sorta 'No', but we really would prefer not to phrase it like that."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep! I actually far prefer closed source software, made by non-VC funded companies, where there business is to create good software that actually adds value for the license I'm paying for. Something like Sublime Text or JetBrains. Sure can have people spend years of their life working on something, but release it as open source because VCs are paying for it, and that leads to more mindshare, but it leaves a bad taste…
I'm imagining that those closed source softwares wouldn't be possible without open source libraries and tools...
But if you open source your revenue-generating parts, and only charge for support/managed version/enterprisey features you'll end up with quite weird incentives, particularly with infrastructure tools, in which the big cloud providers will happily compete with you, using the version you open sourced and providing and ecosystem to their customers that one simply cannot compete with
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I know it's not as popular or sexy as it used to be, but the whole point of a foundation like Apache was to avoid these situations, even more than the way the Linux Foundation is setup. Apache _explicitly_ manages projects to avoid these downsides. - Single corporation ownership. Projects ca…
What is more popular than the Apache Foundation? I thought Apache was top... Is there a cooler/better Apache? If so, please let me know. And when was Apache more popular? I thought it was the uncool place where stuff was written in Java, that became popular because people's conception of Java (and the language/ecosystem itself) changed.
I like this part: "4. Does this mean CockroachDB is no longer open source? CockroachDB will remain source available under a new license. While the new license is a proprietary enterprise license, the source code will still be available for viewing and contributions." I mean... "The answer is kinda sorta 'No', but we really would prefer not to phrase it like that."
As much as this has the vibes of a classic OSS rug pull, as a Cockroach user, I don’t really take it that way. First of all, it was already not open source and secondly, the free to use version was missing key features like follower reads and incremental backups.
Someone creating free software and changing the license on software they created isn't a "rug pull" in any sense of the word. You paid $0 and contributed nothing. What rug is being pulled? A rug pull is when you buy into something and then it's taken away, like when a cryptocurrency token is busted out or you spend money on something and then it's cancelled or nerfed. Don't like it? Write your own distributed fault t…
And as you're surely aware, competent OSS contribution is worth thousands
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. The projects themselves might thrive, but that seem to rely on altruistic developers with other sources of income. Richard Stallman himself doesn't seem to make money from any software he made directly, but from various grants and such, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.e... I thought he was on the payroll for FS…
You are correct, but there is also an interesting phenomenon going on here: old school open source projects last longer. They end up being more reliable in the long term. It's kind of weird that the unprofitable option is the stable one.
Yup - another "Contact Us" for pricing. God forbid if your business grows more than 10 Million ARR and now you owe them undisclosed amount of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! It seems a little short of the claim in their FAQ though, but it's something: > The purpose of the Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity [...] including the creation and maintenance of "open source" software distributed by the Corporation to the public at no charge
I don't think that falls short. The reason for the "any lawful act" language is to allow the ASF to do things like run a conference, accept donations, sell t-shirts and other activities. If the statement was only "develop open-source software" there are all kinds of important activities that support open source development that would be impossible. The fact is, however, that certificates can be changed by the people…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> better/different open source license And that's why "open source" is a really bad term that no one should use unironically, unless they want to confuse the hell out of people. There are protective (copyleft) licenses, and there are permissive licenses - and they're very different beasts. And it's, like, software licensing 101. > that want to go from LGPL to MIT or something I find this extremely weird. In a sane wo…
> picking a copyleft license must mean that you care about user freedoms [...] they're giving up on their principles This is a personal bias and disregards others' definition of true do-whatever-you-want freedom. Different project owners may think differently on what free means and alter the license to respect their principles (and may consider copyleft to be the restrictive/anti-free mistake made early on based on t…
People who value attention over principles are known as "pick mes" apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise. It's probably why Apple stopped updating all their GNU binaries, and you have to sideload stuff with brew to use anything released in the last 10 years. If I had to guess - The patent rights clause weirds out a lot of lawyers. Obviously anyone who works with hardware does…
A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.
In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.