Now I'm waiting for aphyr to test aerospike under cluster partition :-)
Indeed.
Aerospike goes Open Source
81–86 of 86 posts
Re: Aerospike goes Open Source
#82The APGL license caught my eyes. Does anyone take this license into account (deciding between an Apache/MIT/BSD DB vs APGL DB) when they use it in their service / software stack. For example, this openstack thread always keeps me alert using APGL when I am developing a solution. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-Marc... and here is MongoDB's FAQ explaining APGL in plain English: http://blog.mong…
Matt Asay of MongoDB, Inc. (disclosure takes care of Asayroll Rule) responded to that openstack-dev posting, FWIW: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-Marc...
Re: Aerospike goes Open Source
#83The APGL license caught my eyes. Does anyone take this license into account (deciding between an Apache/MIT/BSD DB vs APGL DB) when they use it in their service / software stack. For example, this openstack thread always keeps me alert using APGL when I am developing a solution. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-Marc... and here is MongoDB's FAQ explaining APGL in plain English: http://blog.mong…
I can't see it being an issue. As mentioned in the useful MongoDB link you shared, the licence will require sharing only when modifying the database code, but not require automatic sharing of the rest of the software stack. Have there been any court cases involving AGPL violations? I wonder if some of Gil Yehuda's fears are partly out of lack of clarity on where the reach of the AGPL ends? For example claiming the Mo…
So far, AGPL has not been tested in court. GPL has. The scope of Derivative Works (reach) has as well (but the case law in this area is more complicated than most open source developers are aware of since copyright law is understood differently based on which federal circuit court hears the case). The more challenging consideration for me is the AGPL/Apache (DB/Driver) method that these companies are using -- and especially when you have Apache licensed community contributions (these apparently violates AGPL's own terms). I see this as an area that can backfire against the open source community -- and indeed I'd also like to know if FSF, SFLC, or GPL-violations takes a position on the use of Apache drivers to AGPL DBs. If so, it would be best for the open source community to know about this soon rather than after many have placed themselves in a position where their best option is to pay the vendors that have somehow managed to achieve lock-in. Ironically, this is the opposite of the goals that many in the open source community endorse. So if FSF takes a strict position on AGPL, it could accidentally result in the opposite of the freedoms we have been working for.
I'm also fascinated when companies use a license and then state in their FAQ that they didn't really mean all the terms of the license. If this comes up in court, the judge might take the FAQ into account and interpret the intent of the licensor, or might just look at the license text itself. It'll be interesting to see what happens. My advice for now is to assume the text of the license to be what the licensor intended and my hope is that companies that use open source licenses simply use the licenses that match what they mean. If they really mean that they want you to pay, they should just be clear about it and people can decide if they want to pay.
Re: Aerospike goes Open Source
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to be a common misconception about the interplay of copyright and GPL style licenses. Since they own the copyright, they can relicence it however they choose. The GPL and other open source licenses just give non-copyright holders additional rights beyond what copyright law provide (which for most works is nothing beyond a bit of fair-use). In that way the GPL is a clever hack of copyright, since it relies…
I get that part, but how does that work when other people also contribute changes for which they own the copyright and which are also AGPL licensed, but then to the Aerospike devs?
I see this as one of the fundamental problems with the AGPL/Apache licensing patterns. The company can create an Apache driver, but it's not clear when a member of the community creates a driver if they can also use the Apache license. If all they do is present the driver, then presumably yes, but if they publish a service using their driver calling the AGPL licensed code, their driver should be subject to AGPL's terms which would apply the AGPL to it.
Alternatively they could assign the copyright of their code to a company? But why would they be motivated to do so?
This creates an asymmetry of rights where the company can do things that community members cannot. This seems to the very opposite of what the Open Source movement has been all about.
Re: Aerospike goes Open Source
#85You can try Aerospike in a Terminal.com container. I've created a snapshot with a simple CRUD example at https://terminal.com/tiny/yEITIwNyLT
Re: Aerospike goes Open Source
#86"A database literally ten times faster than existing NoSQL solutions, and one hundred times faster than existing SQL solution". The odds of that claim being true and/or supported by benchmarks is somewhere well below the 1% mark. Why do companies keep making those sort of obviously questionable claims knowing the negative backlash that surely will follow. Boggles the mind really.
CTO, co-founder, initial coder here. Aerospike really is a lot faster than Mongo and Cassandra. It's open source, and you can run whatever benchmarks you'd like yourself. It's about as fast a well-tuned multi-core sharded Redis system, except you don't have to write configure the sharding, and you can have a combination of RAM or Flash, different data in each, of course Flash is cheaper/slower but that's why we give…
hi! how does it compare to tokumx?