3 ms·

Why not the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (https://cncf.io https://cncf.io)? They manage Kubernetes (cluster orchestration) and recently adopted Prometheus

Why not the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (https://cncf.io https://cncf.io)? They manage Kubernetes (cluster orchestration) and recently adopted Prometheus (metric monitoring & alerting). A real-time distributed database as good as RethinkDB could be a great addition, if they are willing to accept it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bcantrill 10y ago
I am on the CNCF Technical Oversight Committee, and speaking personally, I would love to see RethinkDB in the CNCF! I would be happy to champion it, but I already know that the biggest issue is going to be the license: I am hoping that Slava and crew are considering relicensing everything to be under Apache 2.0 -- AGPL is going to make the CNCF path more challenging, I fear.
- nrser 10y ago
  RethinkDB is AGPL? can you elaborate more on the issues? was planning on using Rethink, and this is making me, well, re-think it. not sure if interpretations have changed in the last six years, but i went through an acquisition with a lot of focus on open source licenses in 2010 and from what i remember AGPL was not something you wanted to have touched with a ten foot ethernet cord if you had any proprietary code - the conservative stance being that AGPL could be read to potentially open source anything that communicated with it. i know that's not how the license is explained or is "supposed to work", but the IP team's explanation (WSGR, seemed to know what they were talking about) is remember it was that copy-left licenses didn't have a lot of case law built up around them to clearly defined their de-facto legal mechanics. if you were a large company like Google, FB, etc., you could pretty much decide how you were going to interpret those licenses because you have the resources to defend those interpretations in court, but as a small company going through an acquisition this was a great way for an acquirer to say "hey, doesn't look like this stuff is really worth all that much because it's potentially all free."
- rattray 10y ago
  Wow, the RethinkDB server currently is indeed AGPL v3: https://www.rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed https://www.rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed > Require users who are unwilling to release the patches to the software development community to purchase a commercial license. It definitely looks like they'd be willing, if not eager, to relicense to a less commercially-motivated server now that the company is shutting down. Obviously we'll have to wait and see. Note for posterity and the lazy, the client drivers are Apache v2.
  - lawfulhacker 10y ago
    As the business they are willing to create did not succeed as expected, I think it will not be a problem for them to change the license to Apache v2, as the clients already are licensed under it. They pointed on the FAQ page, that the AGPL was chosen to balance the interest of their business, which used to sell a comercial version of RethinkDB.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

bcantrill 10y ago

I am on the CNCF Technical Oversight Committee, and speaking personally, I would love to see RethinkDB in the CNCF! I would be happy to champion it, but I already know that the biggest issue is going to be the license: I am hoping that Slava and crew are considering relicensing everything to be under Apache 2.0 -- AGPL is going to make the CNCF path more challenging, I fear.

nrser 10y ago
RethinkDB is AGPL? can you elaborate more on the issues? was planning on using Rethink, and this is making me, well, re-think it. not sure if interpretations have changed in the last six years, but i went through an acquisition with a lot of focus on open source licenses in 2010 and from what i remember AGPL was not something you wanted to have touched with a ten foot ethernet cord if you had any proprietary code - the conservative stance being that AGPL could be read to potentially open source anything that communicated with it. i know that's not how the license is explained or is "supposed to work", but the IP team's explanation (WSGR, seemed to know what they were talking about) is remember it was that copy-left licenses didn't have a lot of case law built up around them to clearly defined their de-facto legal mechanics. if you were a large company like Google, FB, etc., you could pretty much decide how you were going to interpret those licenses because you have the resources to defend those interpretations in court, but as a small company going through an acquisition this was a great way for an acquirer to say "hey, doesn't look like this stuff is really worth all that much because it's potentially all free."
rattray 10y ago
Wow, the RethinkDB server currently is indeed AGPL v3: https://www.rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed https://www.rethinkdb.com/faq/#how-is-rethinkdb-licensed > Require users who are unwilling to release the patches to the software development community to purchase a commercial license. It definitely looks like they'd be willing, if not eager, to relicense to a less commercially-motivated server now that the company is shutting down. Obviously we'll have to wait and see. Note for posterity and the lazy, the client drivers are Apache v2.
- lawfulhacker 10y ago
  As the business they are willing to create did not succeed as expected, I think it will not be a problem for them to change the license to Apache v2, as the clients already are licensed under it. They pointed on the FAQ page, that the AGPL was chosen to balance the interest of their business, which used to sell a comercial version of RethinkDB.