Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL) • Hacker News Board

Re: Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL)

#11

Post by zedshaw » Tue, May 25, 2010, 4:35 PM UTC

FraaJad wrote: post #6

JeffJenkins wrote: post #2

I don't really understand why I would want to use this. Why wouldn't I just use SQLite3, if that's what's powering the SQL searches? (maybe with a pretty layer on top for external access.) The KV/document stores that have been coming out are trying to address shortcomings, perceived or real, with RDBMSs. I think some explanation of the trade-offs which each part of the "mullet" make and how they would be obviated by…

* DB for persistence, kv for speed and disk for scaling(?). Different parts of your app might fit one of these cases. Why not have them all under one API? * Use protocols to scale, not backends * Single interface to talk to db/kv store and disk * In addition, use an SQL-like interface, if that's what floats your boat. * Moving data between db/kv/disk is a server side operation.

Exactly. I'm glad someone's paying attention.

Additionally, it's mostly a project I started on a dare that I started liking to hack on. Not really expecting anyone to use it for a while, if ever.

Re: Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL)

#12

Post by zedshaw » Tue, May 25, 2010, 4:36 PM UTC

callahad wrote: post #10

icey wrote: post #9

So... what are the real impacts on a commercial website that uses AGPLed code?

I am not a lawyer. If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed. MongoDB takes this approach, and has written more at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing

Actually, I figured if it's AGPL then basically everything has to be AGPL. We'll see how that goes.

Re: Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL)

#13

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 25, 2010, 4:44 PM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #12

callahad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer. If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed. MongoDB takes this approach, and has written more at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing

Actually, I figured if it's AGPL then basically everything has to be AGPL. We'll see how that goes.

[deleted]

Re: Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL)

#14

Post by icey » Tue, May 25, 2010, 4:47 PM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #12

callahad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer. If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed. MongoDB takes this approach, and has written more at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing

Actually, I figured if it's AGPL then basically everything has to be AGPL. We'll see how that goes.

Do you (or anyone, really) know of a place with a decent definition of how AGPL code needs to be treated?

I'm not clear about what the line is that says "everything from this point must have its source released" versus "all this stuff is OK to license as you please"

Re: Announcing MulletDB (Formerly NoNoSQL)

#15

Post by callahad » Tue, May 25, 2010, 6:04 PM UTC

zedshaw wrote: post #12

callahad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer. If Zed does indeed release a Python driver under the MIT license, and you use that, it's essentially no different than using the LGPL in an end-user distributed app. You'd have to make any of your changes to MulletDB available to your end users, but your proprietary code could remain closed. MongoDB takes this approach, and has written more at http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing

Actually, I figured if it's AGPL then basically everything has to be AGPL. We'll see how that goes.

Sort of. Thanks to section 13 in each license, AGPLv3 and GPLv3 code can be combined. You end up keeping the Affero provisions on your work, which should be sufficient protection.