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

351–360 of 476 posts

Re: CockroachDB license change

#351

Post by jen20 »

immibis wrote: post #339
jen20 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BSL is not an OSI-approved license, so it’s certainly not “open source” by the commonly used definition. I agree it’s a reasonable license. But it’s not an open source license.

The OSI is a consortium of cloud platform vendors (really - check for yourself). Of course they'll define open source in a way that excludes licenses that restrict them from turning your work into closed-source cloud platforms. The good news is that we're not beholden to their definition as they have no official status whatsoever. We don't have to believe them just because they put the words Open Source in their comp…

OSI, and the open source definition they produced, predate the very notion of public cloud by close to a decade. While you don’t have to accept the definition, you are out of step with the industry at large, who broadly use “open source” to refer to things which meet the OSI definition. There’s no need for a competing definition: it’s fine for software to not be open source.

As to the specifics of SSPL, I personally don’t see the rationale for accepting AGPL but not SSPL.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#352

Post by graemep »

swiftcoder wrote: post #324
graemep wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell?

Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#353

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Someone wrote: post #330
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.

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…

EDIT: wrote something stupid here before my morning coffee

Re: CockroachDB license change

#354

Post by coldpie »

ghshephard wrote: post #232
graemep wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can companies not use GPL3 software? I cannot see how its so different from GPL 2 for companies that are users. I can see it has some disadvantages for companies incorporating GPL software in their products, but none for companies merely using GPL 3 software.

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'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

My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#355

Post by orthoxerox »

swiftcoder wrote: post #323
worik wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#356

Post by lucianbr »

spion wrote: post #346
lucianbr wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? Every day it seems clearer that Stallman is right. Mouse subscription? Windows displaying ads in start menu and recording everything you do? How many devices have become useless when the servers shot down, or games became unplayable? How many times books or songs or movies have disappeared from "online collections" after being paid for? "The right to read" seems more and more realistic as time passes. In my op…

Was he though? If we didn't have GPL perhaps at least our software and data would've still been on our computers instead of a privately owned cloud...

Blaming Stallman for that is some olympic-level mental gymnastics.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#357

Post by lolinder »

zachmu wrote: post #239
bityard wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CockroachDB hasn't been an open source project in more than 5 years. They took down the blog post (I'd be curious to know why), but here is the announcement: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr... What started as a neat project with a vibrant and enthusiastic community is now just another dull beige enterprise vendor.

The BSL doesn't make it closed source, it prevents a competitor from running their own DBaaS business using Cockroach as the backend. This has happened to various open source projects, AWS started selling their technology and ate their lunch. BSL is a totally fair compromise for commercial open source licensing imho. If you see BSL as the first step to an announcement like today's, that's a fair criticism. Not sure h…

> The Business Source License (this document, or the “License”) is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License.

— The Business Source License

https://mariadb.com/bsl11/

Re: CockroachDB license change

#358

Post by lolinder »

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 was already not open source, hence the weasel language. "It will remain source available" is the second-most straightforward way to say "it already wasn't, but it's awkward to admit that given that we allowed you to misunderstand the license for five years".

Discussion from five years ago:

Relicensing CockroachDB June 4, 2019 (487 points, 282 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20097077

The blog post is a 404, here's the archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr...

Re: CockroachDB license change

#359

Post by pquerna »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #353
Someone wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

EDIT: wrote something stupid here before my morning coffee

This is an Eclipse foundation project, not an Apache Software Foundation (ASF) project?

it's all volunteers/open source, but this isn't an ASF project.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#360

Post by wvh »

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…

Very much this sentiment. While these sort of licenses and business relationships might make sense for high-margin industries that have specific needs, as somebody who has been doing consultancy for the last x years, I tend to advise most companies against the use of software with vendor or data lock-in, and I'm always sad and weary when this happens to interesting long-term projects where such business decisions get made which erode the trust in a healthy future [for smaller companies and more general purposes].

I'm not criticising a company's business decisions here, it might make sense for CockroachDB's business and profit goals; but such decisions also impact the decisions of dependent users, and I've been too long in this to recommend products and services with increasingly restrictive licensing or technical features that create unhealthy dependencies.

Since the AWSification of software licenses, I'm seeing more and more projects where a company is trying to get out of product/service X or license Y because they're unhappy or pivoting and the license or tech just doesn't fit the purpose any more, at high cost, occasionally even taking down the company.

I guess it's not trivial to balance abusive practices from big players that don't contribute much back with necessary freedom for smaller customers to experiment and freely move between technical solutions.

Post reply on HN