361–370 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm gonna go embarrasingly delete this thread tail between my legs...
They’re clowns.
It's a surprising and very welcome change. Most will benefit. If you have more than $10M revenue, why on earth would you run the limited open core version of CochroachDB just to save some $1K-$10K (which is about the enterprise license cost). The open core version has limitations you don't want to miss esp. reg. backup and restore, encryption, follower reads. Now all those features are available for free if you're sm…
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.
Open source and profit go together like oil and water
I guess I don't get it. CockroachDB is decidedly an enterprise product. There's no need for even a medium sized company to require distributed database the likes of CockroachDB. If you're a small company using it, you're just using it for fun, and you're probably not paying. If you're using it and paying for it, then this doesn't seem like a problem. If you're not using it, then it shouldn't matter. If you're using i…
I don't understand why pure open-source license such as Apache2, MIT or BSD should be replaced with some source available license in order to increase profits from enterprise support contracts:
- The license change won't force cloud companies signing the enterprise agreement with you in most cases. If they didn't want paying you before the license change, why they will change their mind after the licence change? It is better from costs and freedom perspective forking open-source version of your product and using it for free like Amazon did with Elasticsearch.
- The license change leads to user base fragmentation - some of your users switch to forks run by cloud companies. Others start searching for alternative open-source products. So, you start losing users and market share after the license change.
- The license change doesn't bring you new beefy enterprise contracts, since it doesn't include any incentives for your users to sign such contracts.
That's why we at VictoriaMetrics aren't going to change the Apache2 license for our products. Our main goal is to provide good products to users, and to help users use these products in the most efficient way. https://docs.victoriametrics.com/goals/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old(?) school open source with GPL licenses doesn't seem to suffer from this, on a first glance. Maybe Stallman was right. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this. I'm not trying to troll.
FSF requires signing of a CLA. A CLA would let them change the license to whatever they want, just like these companies. Some people were not happy with GPL3 yet that didn't stop the FSF from changing the licenses on their software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[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 mus…
No we don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of those licenses require copyright ownership transfer. It's what makes Linux completely bullet proof against license changes. You'd have to track down every copyright holder (everyone that contributed, even if it's just a 1 line change) to get their permission for re-licensing their contribution. Which in the case of Linux is literally tens of thousands of individuals and companies, if not more.
No, the FSF specifically requires ownership transfer for GNU projects, so that they can do things like go after infringements in court, or relicense GNU projects to newer versions of the GPL unconditionally, e.g. when GPLv3 was released. Ironically, CLAs like the one Google and Meta use for their projects on GitHub do not require ownership transfer -- only the rights to redistribute, because the prevailing Lawyer-bra…
No they do not. Individual GNU software projects might require it, but this choice is up to the project, not the FSF.