3 ms·
Which means there is no chance this would ever become part of PostgreSQL proper.
by gtrubetskoy 11y ago
Which means there is no chance this would ever become part of PostgreSQL proper.
- oconnore 11y agoAGPL actually makes a lot more sense for a database (except for SQLite, which is typically redistributed).
- davidfetter 11y agoCitus 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 agoAnd 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 agoThat'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).
- rch 11y agoAlternative implementations will probably surface, but those will almost certainly be packaged as extensions as well. I think the model could work in this case, both for the business and for PostgreSQL in general.