31–40 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...
A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source
Earlier quoted context omitted.
VC backed or not, what is the launch trajectory? Any DB that gets even a little bit of traction is quickly turned into a hosted service by one of the major cloud providers with full support, eliminating the primary path to revenue for these devs. Their options are?? Patreon and pray or go broke? The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat.
The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat. I truly believe that the Red Hat model is still possible to achieve today, but the barrier of entry is much higher than before. What sets Red Hat apart from many of these VC backed projects is what they actually offer. Red Hat doesn't primarily provide "services" or singular components like a database^, but delivers platform…
I mean, half the reason they sold to IBM is because even Redhat didn’t think they could withstand the assault from Amazon as a standalone entity…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I wrong in thinking you can still compile Scylla after the change as it's source available? You just also need a license, right?
Yes, but that's not an option for our lawyers; we need the actual freedom to do whatever. Source available is not a thing for us; it's not about the source (we will probably not ever touch it anyway), it is about the freedom when they go out of business, change the rules , etc. But I am not a lawyer but I do agree: we gladly pay licenses and support but if things go crazy (upping the prices to stupid amounts etc) we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but that's not an option for our lawyers; we need the actual freedom to do whatever. Source available is not a thing for us; it's not about the source (we will probably not ever touch it anyway), it is about the freedom when they go out of business, change the rules , etc. But I am not a lawyer but I do agree: we gladly pay licenses and support but if things go crazy (upping the prices to stupid amounts etc) we…
I do like it. What percent of revenue do you contribute back to OSS? As long as it flows both ways, it’s great.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...
> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.
I was going to argue, but they do explicitly say "revocable." Has such a license revocation ever been upheld in court?
It’s always kind of a relief when I can completely remove something from my long list of things to check out. Life’s too short to bother with proprietary platforms. A closed source database? Hah, no.
They intentionally waited til after the AWS reInvent conference to announce this.