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

411–420 of 476 posts

Re: CockroachDB license change

#411

Post by orthoxerox »

swiftcoder wrote: post #404
orthoxerox wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. A…

Yes, but are there any AGPL-licensed libraries? I've only seen runnable binaries licensed under AGPL. I can theoretically imagine one, "if you want to build a server application using my binary, I don't want you hiding my source code from your users", but even GPL-licensed libraries are rare, LGPL is more common.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#412

Post by PeterCorless »

redwood wrote: post #410
PeterCorless wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MongoDB is not a drop-in replacement for a CockroachDB. It's not SQL. While MongoDB has come a long way in terms of ACID compliance, etc., you still would need to map everything you've done to MongoDB. That's more work than forking code you're familiar with that already is working.

That makes sense it's more that from first principles when exploring the options it looked like and I see below based on the public page, it wasn't even contemplated.. instead various key value stores without transactionality, and with eventual consistency and limited secondary indexing capabilities were looked at that are not widely used. I guess my deeper point is there's sort of the illusion of a comprehensive ana…

RFD 53 addressed why they avoided NoSQL in general:

"NoSQL systems (e.g., Cassandra, Riak). The challenges of building relational, transactional applications atop these systems is well known. These systems also generally predate the modern emphasis on hands-off operation, which is critical for supporting a system that we will not be operating directly."

https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0053#rfd48

Re: CockroachDB license change

#413

Post by eikenberry »

teddyh wrote: post #368
eikenberry wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FSF does not require a CLA.

If they don't that is something new. Do you know when that started (or rather, stopped)?

Re: CockroachDB license change

#414

Post by PeterCorless »

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 used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success.

Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#415

Post by ath3nd »

graemep wrote: post #327
immibis wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Capitalism works fine under certain conditions: free markets, which implies competition. The problem is that these conditions do not always prevail.

Eventually, on the free market there are winners, and these winners form a monopoly. See Nestle, Tyson foods, Apple. The big corps, having cornered the market, then squeeze the hapless users (and the ecosystem, in Apple's case) into exorbitant prices, because there is no competition. You started with your beloved "free market", ended up with a monstrous monopoly. Surprise, this is how any "free market" story ends.

If you want to avoid the trash situations that we are in today, you need to regulate the shit out of companies with antitrust, breaking them down when they become too big, not allowing them to acquire others under certain conditions and forcing them to treat their workers and customers well. This is the opposite of "free markets", and is the only way if you want a stable society.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#416

Post by redwood »

PeterCorless wrote: post #412
redwood wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense it's more that from first principles when exploring the options it looked like and I see below based on the public page, it wasn't even contemplated.. instead various key value stores without transactionality, and with eventual consistency and limited secondary indexing capabilities were looked at that are not widely used. I guess my deeper point is there's sort of the illusion of a comprehensive ana…

RFD 53 addressed why they avoided NoSQL in general: "NoSQL systems (e.g., Cassandra, Riak). The challenges of building relational, transactional applications atop these systems is well known. These systems also generally predate the modern emphasis on hands-off operation, which is critical for supporting a system that we will not be operating directly." https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0053#rfd48

My point is to conflate the entire non-relational category into this bucket when one of the two items referenced peaked >10 years ago and the other isn't generally strongly consistent at write time, transactional, or with strongly consistent secondary indexes, is a limited and misleading POV https://db-engines.com/en/ranking

Re: CockroachDB license change

#417

Post by m463 »

hnarn wrote: post #409
m463 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem with the term "open source". It is ambiguous and can mean anything from public domain to source available. If you just allow people to look at the source, you can call it "open source" and nobody can really argue. If you did that and called it GPL, things would be different.

It's certainly not ambiguous, but the reason why companies like CockroachDB and others would like to make it appear so certainly is obvious. Anyone confused can just be referred to "The Open Source Definition"[1] by the OSI. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd

that is one definition.

It's like saying "freedom".

reading this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

"the definition is the most common standard for open-source software."

It is not exclusive.

saying "open source" does not describe a license. It is a generic term.

And the point is that unless someone points to a standard or a license, they can call their software open source, just show you the source with restrictions and use ambiguity to do different things than expected.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#418

Post by stubish »

candiddevmike wrote: post #59
andrewmutz wrote: post #53

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.

Like other folks have said, anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA.

Imagine a world where GPLv2 was found to be unenforceable in a major jurisdiction such as the US. It has been a serious worry in the past. A CLA lets a project survive that situation. But I don't know if it is possible to have a CLA that also cannot be used to fork a project into a commercial license. So the trick would seem to be a CLA that assigns copyright to some sort of non-profit that is legally bound to be unable to take that path.

Re: CockroachDB license change

#419

Post by aftbit »

swiftcoder wrote: post #404
orthoxerox wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. A…

Ah but what if you bundle both your application binary and some (unmodified) AGPL software into a single Docker container? Do you then need to provide source code for your entire application?

Re: CockroachDB license change

#420

Post by collinmanderson »

kragen wrote: post #12
tvink wrote: post #4

Free license: > Telemetry Required (excluding ephemeral clusters of 7 days or less) So not free, then. Is there already a popular fork?

it hasn't been open-source since 02019 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CockroachDB#History so if there are popular forks they'd have to be five years old

> 02019

Why not 002019? 6 digits. That would be valid a lot longer.

Post reply on HN