Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

whitedb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#61

Post by a-nom-a-ly »

pjmlp wrote: post #59
jafaku wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.

Yes, all the time. Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for. With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.

> Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for.

Have you ever considered the fact that it's not all about money and proprietary software? This affect Open Source software as well. If I want to allow other to do as they will with my code, I won't touch a library with such a viral license because I don't want to subject myself or my users with having to even think about it. Also, have you considered...

> With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.

That's not a proof of anything... The same license you cite is a living proof that most[1] companies and regular people will contribute even more than they have to without you having to force them to do anything.

[1] most, for some definition of most, because if a company of individual have neither the expertise nor the resources to contribute, then what good does restricting their use of the code achieve? (rhetorical question)

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#62

Post by nknighthb »

lambda wrote: post #60
nknighthb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…

What disgusting arrogance. Could we please try to improve the tone of discourse here?

What would improve the tone of discourse is if every time someone posted a GPL'd project, the thread didn't fill up with entitled jerks whining about the terms under which they've been offered free stuff.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#63

Post by nknighthb »

jafaku wrote: post #54
nknighthb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…

He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.

> the library is unusable with this license

No, it isn't. I can use it. So can millions of others. That you can't is most likely the fault of shitty lawyers. Not the authors' problem.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#64

Post by StavrosK »

meowface wrote: post #31
throwaway420 wrote: post #8

Is it accurate to describe this as a faster Redis that doesn't have all of the useful data structures like lists, sets, etc?

Yes, somewhat. It's also different from Redis because Redis is intended to be ran as a server (it stands for Remote Dictionary Server). This is ran entirely as a process and communicates via IPC; other machines can't reach the database, only the local machine. This is a big reason for why it's very fast. However, it also means you can't distribute the database across multiple servers. You could think of it like a ver…

I keep wondering why there isn't a libredis you can just link into your program without needing to run a server and all that. It sounds very useful, but I'm not sure how hard it would be to develop.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#65

Post by quanticle »

nknighthb wrote: post #62
lambda wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusting arrogance. Could we please try to improve the tone of discourse here?

What would improve the tone of discourse is if every time someone posted a GPL'd project, the thread didn't fill up with entitled jerks whining about the terms under which they've been offered free stuff.

Except that no free stuff has been offered. A GPLv3 license is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, look at this cool thing I made! Oh, you want to use it for anything other than GPLv3 projects? Well, you can't have it!"

Forget the intent of the GPLv3. The effect of the GPLv3 has been to damage and subvert free software, rather than promote it.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#66

Post by bitdiddle »

tammet wrote: post #37
mbreese wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I was looking forward to using this until I saw that part. I (like I assume many others) cannot use a GPL3 library (and I'm in academia). If you want any sort of traction for a library, GPL3 is not the way to go. This is why the LGPL was created, so that you can have modifications done on your library be free-as-in-speech, but still make the library as a whole useable for a wide variet…

I'd just make a remark that even in the GPL world everything is not as simple as it looks. There are GPL versions with _exceptions_ endorsed by RMS, for example. A long time ago I used to work on a Hobbit scheme compiler for the scm interpreter, which was promoted by RMS and became Guile later. scm had such a GPL-with-exceptions clause by RMS, which was stated clearly incorrectly. I take every chance to boast that I…

Yes, there's a lot of subtlety to licensing. Personally I think it should be taught in computer science schools. Open source software has really changed the dynamics of corporations. Of course we wouldn't have the open source movement without free software and imho free software is more important than ever. You seemed to have struck a nice balance with this exception that protects your interests in the database space.

And yes, getting RMS to change something is quite the accomplishment :) His ability to walk the talk is impressive.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#67

Post by [deleted] »

pjmlp wrote: post #58
jafaku wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, most devs that choose GPL3 don't know the first thing about licenses, and just pick it because they will do whatever Stallman tells them to do. I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it.

> I can't think of any good use case for GPL3. Nobody should use it. When coding open source software. For everyone else that wants to make money with the free work of others, a commercial license can always be asked for.

[deleted]

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#68

Post by [deleted] »

nknighthb wrote: post #63
jafaku wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.

> the library is unusable with this license No, it isn't. I can use it. So can millions of others. That you can't is most likely the fault of shitty lawyers. Not the authors' problem.

[deleted]

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#69

Post by jafaku »

nknighthb wrote: post #63
jafaku wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just letting the author know that the library is unusable with this license. So either people won't use it, or they will use it and violate the license. Would you seriously consider using (or even trying) a new library that has not even proved to be better than others yet, if you had to comply with GPLv3? I wouldn't.

> the library is unusable with this license No, it isn't. I can use it. So can millions of others. That you can't is most likely the fault of shitty lawyers. Not the authors' problem.

Odds are you don't really understand GPLv3. See what people like Linus (you might have heard of him) think about it. And he made quite some contributions to the open source world.

Re: WhiteDB – Lightweight NoSQL database written in C, operating in main memory

#70

Post by jafaku »

endgame wrote: post #39
nknighthb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here. That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to yo…

Well said. People need to remember that the L in LGPL stands for "Lesser", not "Library".

Where lesser means less restrictions, not less freedom.

GPLv3 = The ultimate restriction

Post reply on HN