31–40 of 46 posts
I have experienced "devs changed something and it broke reporting" more times than I count. Typically the reason boils down to 1) they don't care, 2) their management doesn't care. That has always felt like an insurmountable cultural problem, but I do wonder, if a bot posted a PR comment on breaking changes before they got deployed, might that move the needle, just a little?
The license chosen [1] (Elastic License 2.0) is one that isn't considered open source by many, due to not being OSD [2] compatible. Were you aware of this before marketing as open source and, out of interest, does the license & usage of "open source" come into conversation when going through the YC process? [1] https://github.com/grai-io/grai-core/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://opensource.org/osd/
We are pretty open to feedback on licensing and have gone back and forth internally because, frankly, we'd rather use a copy-left license. We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development along but therein lies the tension. The common monetization paths either feature-lock critical self-hosted capabilities like SSO behind a paywall and/or monetize behind a cloud hosted o…
I don’t know enough about the elastic license but I very much prefer this approach. I’ve seen a lot of source available projects deliberately refuse to implement features, and just generally let the product managers spend time on dark pattern bait-and-switch to drive sales. It misaligns the incentives, and complicates the product offering. It’s infuriating for developers. This is much clearer for everyone.
Theres datafold [1], databend (acquired by ibm), atlan, greatexpectations to name a few, doing very similar things.
Just looking at the video I could not figure out what's differentiated. I hope you have success in the space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are pretty open to feedback on licensing and have gone back and forth internally because, frankly, we'd rather use a copy-left license. We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development along but therein lies the tension. The common monetization paths either feature-lock critical self-hosted capabilities like SSO behind a paywall and/or monetize behind a cloud hosted o…
I personally don't have anything against the license you've chosen, and I respect your right to protect your efforts against usage you don't desire. I just think it's better to avoid using "open source" if going down the ELv2 path, and using something like "source available" or "fair code" instead to prevent confusion in misrepresenting this as, what is commonly considered, open source. If you'd like further detail i…
I think the effort to standardize what is meant by a term like "open source" is generally good, but I also think the meaning of language is always up for debate, and the OSI's definitions are only right if they are useful.
Of the two clauses you pulled out of the EL2 license, the first one - "You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service ..." - seems fine to me as "open source", while the second - "You may not move, change, disable, or circumvent the license key functionality ..." - seems not-fine.
(So for what it's worth, because of that second clause, I am agreeing with you that this license shouldn't be called "open source" - but it seems unfortunate for OP if they aren't relying on that clause.)
I think the issue I have is with the 6th OSI definition you pulled out - "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" - it seems to me like that one could use some tweaking. I do think it's important that the ability to run "Derived Works" is not limited by "field of endeavor", but I think selling managed software as a service could be a specific carve-out to that. It seems totally reasonable and not violating the spirit of "open source" to say you can modify and self-host for any purpose, but you can't re-sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are pretty open to feedback on licensing and have gone back and forth internally because, frankly, we'd rather use a copy-left license. We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development along but therein lies the tension. The common monetization paths either feature-lock critical self-hosted capabilities like SSO behind a paywall and/or monetize behind a cloud hosted o…
> We believe a project like this needs financial backing and a dedicated team driving development What benefits do you get from being open source other than the OS stamp of approval? Perhaps the solution is to just go closed source. I'm all for open source, but I'm not the biggest fan of open core or source available. All it does it hurt the business with little benefit to me. I'd rather you make more money and suppo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally don't have anything against the license you've chosen, and I respect your right to protect your efforts against usage you don't desire. I just think it's better to avoid using "open source" if going down the ELv2 path, and using something like "source available" or "fair code" instead to prevent confusion in misrepresenting this as, what is commonly considered, open source. If you'd like further detail i…
Thanks for the link. Some personal thoughts: I think the effort to standardize what is meant by a term like "open source" is generally good, but I also think the meaning of language is always up for debate, and the OSI's definitions are only right if they are useful. Of the two clauses you pulled out of the EL2 license, the first one - "You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service…
Personally I would heavily disagree with that, and that statement is something I see as against the spirit of open source. In my view, open source and free software mainly intend to use licensing to put the freedoms and rights of the code & it's users in front of those of it's authors. Being able to re-sell has always been a significant point, and part of the spirit, in free software and open source.
I think the space of DQ is pretty competitive. Theres datafold [1], databend (acquired by ibm), atlan, greatexpectations to name a few, doing very similar things. Just looking at the video I could not figure out what's differentiated. I hope you have success in the space. [1] https://www.datafold.com
Here are some things we think are really important though
1. Data quality testing ideally happens during CI not after merge.
2. Developers come first. Virtually every aspect of the tool can be customized, modified, and extended down to the basic data model without changing any upstream core code. Want to build your own custom application on top of your data lineage? Great! Have at it!
3. Users should be able to own not just their own data but their own metadata. We go to great lengths to maintain feature parity between the cloud and self-hosted application.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a side note, DBT is being required everywhere these days
I believe you w.r.t. tech-first companies. I work in a tiny software dept in a small service company and we have no infrastructure like this at all. It would be nice to know how I can go from zero-to-Grai.
Website looks great! Just FYI, I’m getting a “failed to load search index” error in your docs. Also I saw GitHub Actions called out in the workflow. Do you have GitLab support?
Thanks so much! Really appreciate the kind words. We haven't had anyone request Gitlab yet but would love to add support! Any chance you'd be willing to beta test for us? If so, shoot me an email at ian@grai.io :). EDIT: It looks like the index issue is related to our search provider. Were you able to eventually load the page or is it fully blocking you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks so much! Really appreciate the kind words. We haven't had anyone request Gitlab yet but would love to add support! Any chance you'd be willing to beta test for us? If so, shoot me an email at ian@grai.io :). EDIT: It looks like the index issue is related to our search provider. Were you able to eventually load the page or is it fully blocking you?
Just tried it again, and I’m still having the same issue with search :(.