7 ms·

AGPL license if anyone's curious: https://github.com/citusdata/citus/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/citusdata/citus/blob/master/LICENSE

rkrzr 11y ago
GNU AGPL to be precise (GNU Affero General Public License).
polskibus 11y ago
Does that mean that whatever connects to this database needs to be AGPL too?
- crudbug 11y ago
  No .. it means any changes you make to CitusDB should be made public. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
- kodablah 11y ago
  No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
  - hlandau 11y ago
    Nope. https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable
    - kod 11y ago
      This is a really bad argument, probably wouldn't stand up in court, and in any case doesn't have precedent. Hint: How did you (the developer) originally acquire a _copy_ of the AGPL'd sourcecode?
      - bryanlarsen 11y ago
        Not only that: running the app requires copying it into memory; editing files requires making copies; deploying it to your production servers requires making copies.
        kod 11y ago
        Copying it into memory solely in order to run it probably isn't an issue https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
        singlow 11y ago
        U.S. Copyright code allows you to make copies into memory or otherwise if it is required in order to utilize the software. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
        belorn 11y ago
        I remember that exception, and it was very explicit that you needed to already have obtained copyright permission to use the software. The legal theory behind the "copy to memory" exception is that if a end-user already have been granted permission to use a copyrighted work, then it make sense that they also have permission to "copy" it to their computers memory. If you have a copyright license that adds a condition to the grant of permission, its hard sell to argue that the exception trumps the condition.
        singlow 11y ago
        It says, explicitly, that making copies for the purpose of executing it is not an infringement. I do not need permission if it is not an infringing act.
        belorn 11y ago
        "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the "owner" of a copy of a computer program" If you do not have a licensed permission from the author, you now have to prove that you are the legal owner of the copy. It could be said that they intended to address people who pirated a copy from a torrent site (or a BBS, since this is before the time of torrents), but its a major claim that someone can own a copyrighted work without, 1) purchasing it, 2) having a copyright license to it. When it comes to GPL in particular, the question is also if the recipient is a owner or a licensee. The license text specifically call "you" to be equivalent with "licensee", which makes the claim of ownership even more dubious.
  - reitanqild 11y ago
    As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another HN thread about some other nice but AGPL licensed software I've never heard about again: """The Opa web site says that I cannot: "Firstly, `‘if I'm using AGPL Opa to develop an app does it need to be AGPL, too?’'. Long story short — yes, it does." """ [0] IANAL but being a nerd I have read a lot of licenses and it seems pretty clear to me that thats what companies has in mind when they license something under AGPL. Unless someone can prove me wrong I hope we can stop spreading the misconception that AGPL somehow isn't viral. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928030
    - mordocai 11y ago
      You have misread and other people have misunderstood then. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl clearly explains what the license intends as does the second paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License.
      - reitanqild 11y ago
        See my edit as well. Based on what GNU says in the first link it seems kind of reasonable although I will not dare to use it without checking carefully with lawyers as this obviously this isn't what a lot of people think.
        mordocai 11y ago
        Unfortunately very few of those people have actually read the license. As another commenter said, I don't see how you can read the license and come to the conclusion that a user of an AGPL program over the network would have to AGPL their code. It just doesn't make any rational sense.
gtrubetskoy 11y ago
Which means there is no chance this would ever become part of PostgreSQL proper.
- oconnore 11y ago
  AGPL actually makes a lot more sense for a database (except for SQLite, which is typically redistributed).
- davidfetter 11y ago
  Citus owns the copyrights, and the CLA ensures that they will continue to. That means that they can reassign it under a different license if they so choose, and they could at some point choose a liberal license.
  - cm3 11y ago
    And a CLA in place also means many contributors will shy away from doing so because they have no idea what happens with their contribution in the next version. Either it's a community project owned by everyone under an agreed upon license or it's more like a record deal for new artists.
- rch 11y ago
  That's correct, and with such a significant license change I think the term 'unfork' is being used inappropriately in the title. Edit: the PostGIS extension is GPL, and that license choice has been very successful. Hopefully the AGPL works out at least as well for Citus, I'm just not familiar enough to know what the implications will be in this context.
  - gtrubetskoy 11y ago
    >> the PostGIS extension is GPL But then it doesn't really belong or aim to be in PostgreSQL proper, at least IMO, so I think that's fine. The functionality (i.e. distributed processing and horizontal scaling) that Citus has done is something that I predict will eventually be part of standard PostgreSQL, but it will not be Citus's code (unless they change the license, of course).

rkrzr 11y ago

GNU AGPL to be precise (GNU Affero General Public License).

polskibus 11y ago

Does that mean that whatever connects to this database needs to be AGPL too?

crudbug 11y ago
No .. it means any changes you make to CitusDB should be made public. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
kodablah 11y ago
No, it means if you make changes to the code and use it over a network you have to be AGPL too (think "network" as "distribution" in the GPL sense).
- hlandau 11y ago
  Nope. https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable https://www.devever.net/~hl/agplunenforceable
  - kod 11y ago
    This is a really bad argument, probably wouldn't stand up in court, and in any case doesn't have precedent. Hint: How did you (the developer) originally acquire a _copy_ of the AGPL'd sourcecode?
    - bryanlarsen 11y ago
      Not only that: running the app requires copying it into memory; editing files requires making copies; deploying it to your production servers requires making copies.
      - kod 11y ago
        Copying it into memory solely in order to run it probably isn't an issue https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
      - singlow 11y ago
        U.S. Copyright code allows you to make copies into memory or otherwise if it is required in order to utilize the software. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
        belorn 11y ago
        I remember that exception, and it was very explicit that you needed to already have obtained copyright permission to use the software. The legal theory behind the "copy to memory" exception is that if a end-user already have been granted permission to use a copyrighted work, then it make sense that they also have permission to "copy" it to their computers memory. If you have a copyright license that adds a condition to the grant of permission, its hard sell to argue that the exception trumps the condition.
        singlow 11y ago
        It says, explicitly, that making copies for the purpose of executing it is not an infringement. I do not need permission if it is not an infringing act.
        belorn 11y ago
        "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the "owner" of a copy of a computer program" If you do not have a licensed permission from the author, you now have to prove that you are the legal owner of the copy. It could be said that they intended to address people who pirated a copy from a torrent site (or a BBS, since this is before the time of torrents), but its a major claim that someone can own a copyrighted work without, 1) purchasing it, 2) having a copyright license to it. When it comes to GPL in particular, the question is also if the recipient is a owner or a licensee. The license text specifically call "you" to be equivalent with "licensee", which makes the claim of ownership even more dubious.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  As far as I know it means it is contagious over the network. If not I have misread and quite a few other people have misunderstood as well I guess. See for example MongoDB and others that distribute the core under AGPL and the drivers under MIT or something so that you can actually use it for something without having to make your product AGPL licensed as well. Edit: did some quick googling and found this in another HN thread about some other nice but AGPL licensed software I've never heard about again: """The Opa web site says that I cannot: "Firstly, `‘if I'm using AGPL Opa to develop an app does it need to be AGPL, too?’'. Long story short — yes, it does." """ [0] IANAL but being a nerd I have read a lot of licenses and it seems pretty clear to me that thats what companies has in mind when they license something under AGPL. Unless someone can prove me wrong I hope we can stop spreading the misconception that AGPL somehow isn't viral. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928030
  - mordocai 11y ago
    You have misread and other people have misunderstood then. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl clearly explains what the license intends as does the second paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License.
    - reitanqild 11y ago
      See my edit as well. Based on what GNU says in the first link it seems kind of reasonable although I will not dare to use it without checking carefully with lawyers as this obviously this isn't what a lot of people think.
      - mordocai 11y ago
        Unfortunately very few of those people have actually read the license. As another commenter said, I don't see how you can read the license and come to the conclusion that a user of an AGPL program over the network would have to AGPL their code. It just doesn't make any rational sense.

gtrubetskoy 11y ago

Which means there is no chance this would ever become part of PostgreSQL proper.

oconnore 11y ago
AGPL actually makes a lot more sense for a database (except for SQLite, which is typically redistributed).
davidfetter 11y ago
Citus owns the copyrights, and the CLA ensures that they will continue to. That means that they can reassign it under a different license if they so choose, and they could at some point choose a liberal license.
- cm3 11y ago
  And a CLA in place also means many contributors will shy away from doing so because they have no idea what happens with their contribution in the next version. Either it's a community project owned by everyone under an agreed upon license or it's more like a record deal for new artists.
rch 11y ago
That's correct, and with such a significant license change I think the term 'unfork' is being used inappropriately in the title. Edit: the PostGIS extension is GPL, and that license choice has been very successful. Hopefully the AGPL works out at least as well for Citus, I'm just not familiar enough to know what the implications will be in this context.
- gtrubetskoy 11y ago
  >> the PostGIS extension is GPL But then it doesn't really belong or aim to be in PostgreSQL proper, at least IMO, so I think that's fine. The functionality (i.e. distributed processing and horizontal scaling) that Citus has done is something that I predict will eventually be part of standard PostgreSQL, but it will not be Citus's code (unless they change the license, of course).