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

321–330 of 476 posts

Re: CockroachDB license change

#321

Post by worik »

immibis wrote: post #313
timcobb wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

> Unfortunately the Apache Foundation structure has some (an unspecified number greater than zero) "kill all the Muslims now!"

Yuk.

It is a trap to condem the foundation because of some people who are nasty outside the foundation

If they were enabled to stand in the way of Mahdi Islam, or their mates participating then there would be a problem

We have a problem in tech with naive fascists and fascist enablers. We must deal with it, but condemning the person, not the behavior, is not the way

Mahdi Islam is made up

Re: CockroachDB license change

#322

Post by worik »

trws wrote: post #255
ghshephard wrote: post #232

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.

> won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.

I feel out of touch

Why?>

Re: CockroachDB license change

#323

Post by swiftcoder »

worik wrote: post #322
trws wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL. I feel out of touch Why?>

The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)

Re: CockroachDB license change

#324

Post by swiftcoder »

graemep wrote: post #252
ghshephard wrote: post #232

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…

I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > 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 So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.

They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)

Re: CockroachDB license change

#325

Post by croes »

Thoreandan wrote: post #129

> Does this mean that 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. The word you're looking for is "yes".

It's always obvious when they need multiple sentences to answer a simple yes or no question.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#326

Post by swiftcoder »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #209
nsm wrote: post #166

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...

In the sense that most modern programming languages and compilers are open-source, sure, nothing outside the embedded world can truly be built without relying on open source.

There are still native shops that rely on very little open source, though at this point probably only in niches like gamedev or defence.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#327

Post by graemep »

immibis wrote: post #316
haolez wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's almost like capitalism is a destructive force and a poor way to organise a society.

Capitalism works fine under certain conditions: free markets, which implies competition.

The problem is that these conditions do not always prevail.

I used to think this was fixable: https://pietersz.co.uk/2009/11/fix-capitalism

I now think it is more complex and we need a mixed economy.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#328

Post by frant-hartm »

trws wrote: post #255
ghshephard wrote: post #232

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.

I remember that Neo4j Enterprise used to be available under AGPL. They pulled it and now it's available only under a commercial license.

AGPL is not a problem for server-side software if you don't need to modify it. Your application (talking to the server) doesn't become infected by AGPL.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#329

Post by gsich »

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.

EEE all over again.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#330

Post by Someone »

timcobb wrote: post #283
jaaron wrote: post #189

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.

Apache is both popular and “the place where projects go to die”. They have many, many projects that see limited development activity and aren’t well-known (how many projects in https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?name do you even vaguely know of what they’re about?)

I also think the popularity of the Apache license is part of what makes Apache popular.

> I thought it was the uncool place where stuff was written in Java

They have lots of projects running on the JVM, but “written in Java” isn’t a requirement, nor is “running on the JVM”. See https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?language

Post reply on HN