371–380 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
even then you've had five years notice that enshittification was coming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CockroachDB#History
Making $10M ARR companies pay for the software that they use is not enshittification.
It's just an arbitrary number
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i mean, yes? it is? software you can't use without someone else's permission is obviously shittier than open-source software you can fork, even if you're a big company. perhaps especially if you're a big company. and software that sends telemetry to the vendor is obviously shittier than software that doesn't
i mean, no? it isn't? changing the license doesn't change the software? the software still works the same way?
So not just a license change
Are any of the databases certain (as certain as one can be) to stay open?
Postgres also has some separate large entities supporting it but it rolls up to the same codebase
VictoriaMetrics CTO here. 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 afte…
Consider me skeptical.
VictoriaMetrics CTO here. 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 afte…
You can't out compete Amazon here. I vastly prefer to use MIT or Apache code for my projects. It just makes things easier, but I also respect companies like yours have a right to seek a profit.
Probably a good move. I'd looked at Cockroach before for a project - they basically disqualified themselves from the start by nerfing the "core" version so bad it was useless, while Enterprise was some absolutely insane figure for a cash-strapped startup. While it was possible to hotfix the code to get around their restrictions - we eventually just used something else. This at least gets the full-fledged product in t…
Ran the core version for around 3 years in production for a smart city project. The company I worked for has been running it for around 6 years. Not sure what you are talking about. Of course, we would love to use features like stale replicas for exports. But this isn't something we absolutely need.
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…
Well what do you expect to maintain the mouse’s cloud servers, if not subscription revenue? The greed here!
2. Need revenue to pay for the Cloud services.
3, Charge mouse users for the Cloud services.
It's the (stupid) circle of life.
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.
> 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…
I actually prefer the approach of LF, EF or CNCF where it's transparent where folks work for and your affiliation is disclosed upfront. In the CNCF for example, we separate out technical project decisions (maintainers) from funding decisions (members). That is healthier than blending it all in one at the ASF imho and having no idea where person is working for imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No -- but I will leave it to the RFD that I'm currently writing (and to the others that we will make public) to explain the rationale.
Look forward to reading it
[0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0508