Where's the source? Why does it say "Pricing" on the website if it's free? This isn't free, it's just an attempt at free publicity.
The pricing page mentions it's free.
> This section only applies to Datomic 990-9202 and lower. Newer versions of Datomic Cloud will be free of licensing related costs, and you will only pay for the hardware that you use to run the system.
Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential t…
I'm not sure, but I think from a marketing perspective, you do not want to write "No" anywhere. I might be wrong, and I'd love if someone with knowledge in this area could answer. It's something I recall from the back of my mind...
I find that answer confusing. I don't think I've ever seen binaries being licensed under Apache 2 without the relevant source code before.
Yeah, it's a complete bullshit move. Mongoose OS (an embedded iot Plattform not the db) does something similar. It's extremely weasely and doesn't instill trust at all.
Aside, I remember HN in 2009 or so where Clojure was a daily homepage staple and Rich Hickey was putting out his talks about Clojure and code design. I watched a lot of that and used Clojure fulltime for five years. Wonder what he's up to these days.
Congratulations to Rich Hickey's children!! I hope your college experience was excellent. Disclaimer: that is how Rich explained why Datomic stayed closed source.
Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential t…
I didn't realize it was possible to release binaries under a different license from the source code that generated them. In this case, is the "source code" just the physical machine code or bytecode in the binary?
Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential t…
I felt the exact same thing. I was pretty sure the answer was "No" but they were too chicken to write it. Were they hoping that people wouldn't notice?
You'd think they could have just left that question out of their FAQ and licensed it with a "free-as-in-beer" click-through license.
Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential t…
I felt the exact same thing. I was pretty sure the answer was "No" but they were too chicken to write it. Were they hoping that people wouldn't notice?
Probably. They were hoping that the less-informed (like me) would see "The Datomic binaries are being released under the Apache 2.0 license" and think "Datomic is relicensed under Apache 2.0".
Not complaining about the actual announcement itself here: seems pretty sweet all things considered, But: the "Is it Open Source?" section should lead with "No." It's not a complicated question, and it's not a complicated answer. I think it's weird to talk about having "all the same rights" without explaining why that matters particularly (it does matter, it's just not explained much!) but it is somewhat tangential t…
I'm not sure, but I think from a marketing perspective, you do not want to write "No" anywhere. I might be wrong, and I'd love if someone with knowledge in this area could answer. It's something I recall from the back of my mind...
Being a marketing tactic makes it more scummy, not less.