6 ms·

News: "Our initial plan was to acquire the intellectual property left over from the RethinkDB company, enabling us to relicense the code and use the name Rethin

News: "Our initial plan was to acquire the intellectual property left over from the RethinkDB company, enabling us to relicense the code and use the name RethinkDB. After aggressively pursuing this plan since the company shut down in September, little progress has been made." Dang.

jhugg 10y ago
I wonder what the offer amount is/was.
- williamstein 10y ago
  Unrelated - I personally tried to broker an offer (with an investor I know), but nobody would respond to me. It's too late now, since we're switching to PostgreSQL asap....
  - whatnotests 10y ago
    This is why we can't have nice things. People! Answer your emails!
    - cblock811 10y ago
      Silence means the answer was no.
  - ma2rten 10y ago
    From this point of view, it would have been better if the company had gone bankrupt.
- tinco 10y ago
  I don't think an offer amount was made. As far as I can tell there is no significant money or even organization in the group of people that are doing their best to manage the project. They're still looking for a way to formalize. I would read this as that stakeholders have not been eager to donate the RethinkDB IP to a foundation, so perhaps there either are commercial parties interested in the IP, or the stakeholders think there might be. This is all conjecture though, unfortunately besides these meeting notes there is no record of interactions with the RethinkDB stakeholders.
  - jhugg 10y ago
    So you've got this thing that's of non-zero value. Because the company shut down, and didn't get acquired, it's probably still owned by a largish number of folks. Getting the right approval to sell it for a song would seem tricky without majority shareholders being really into the idea.
    - jkarneges 10y ago
      Yeah, it's hard. I worked on a video game that was canceled 16 years ago, and only recently released in unfinished form. It was very difficult to get consensus among the team to allow a release, and ultimately we had to settle on a non-free license (CC non-commercial. better than nothing). We had some commercial offers, but they were low enough that it made it seem like we could seek a better offer, even though no such better offers really exist. I can easily see the same thing happening with RethinkDB: Buyer: I'll give $10K for all of RethinkDB's IP. Owners: LOL, no thanks. You know how much we spent building this? Buyer: I'll give you $100K. Owners: Ehh starting to turn into real money, maybe we'll hold out for a bigger number? Buyer: I'll give you $1M! Owners: Now we're talking! But, no. Surely if you'll offer this much, there's someone to beat it. Let's go looking. I don't see a way out... Fortunately, they picked a FOSS license. As much as people like to gripe on the AGPL, we have code we can freely modify and use, even commercially. That's pretty awesome, and more than I can say about my much less valuable video game.
  - chrisabrams 10y ago
    Imagine trying to move a couch with your hands tied behind your back. That is how it has been for us the past few months. Good things coming soon though.
  - databahn 10y ago
    > I would read this as that stakeholders have not been eager to donate the RethinkDB IP to a foundation, so perhaps there either are commercial parties interested in the IP, or the stakeholders think there might be. Can't blame them. I'd do the same thing as an investor. The only way this IP will be open sourced would be if the purchaser of the IP chooses to do so.
eikenberry 10y ago
I don't see the issue with using the name? From what I've read there is no trademark, which means no legal baggage with the name. And the code is Free Software, so there is no requirement to take licensing ownership for the project to continue. It is probably better that they can't as that means it is practically impossible to close source it.
- ensignavenger 10y ago
  They want to change the license.
  - chrisabrams 10y ago
    For many of the foundations we've spoken to, we would need to change the license.
    - bcantrill 10y ago
      As a member of the TOC of the CNCF, I'm happy to advocate getting RethinkDB in the CNCF now and changing the license later -- I would love to get RethinkDB in the CNCF!
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      Just curious - why AGPL doesn't fit them? Not implying anything, just wonder about possible cases.
      - jjirsa 10y ago
        Because AGPL is so highly restrictive that most OSS foundations won't have projects use it - they prefer the far more permissive Apache/MIT/BSD licenses
        drdaeman 10y ago
        Yes, I've heard similar things. But they're really generic - that's why I've asked. I was wondering if there are somewhat more concrete examples. Like... some specific use cases and clauses that conflict with them.
mifeng 10y ago
That's a weird statement given that this group are mostly former RethinkDB folks.
mifeng 10y ago
That's a weird statement given that this group are mostly former RethinkDB folks.

jhugg 10y ago

I wonder what the offer amount is/was.

williamstein 10y ago
Unrelated - I personally tried to broker an offer (with an investor I know), but nobody would respond to me. It's too late now, since we're switching to PostgreSQL asap....
- whatnotests 10y ago
  This is why we can't have nice things. People! Answer your emails!
  - cblock811 10y ago
    Silence means the answer was no.
- ma2rten 10y ago
  From this point of view, it would have been better if the company had gone bankrupt.
tinco 10y ago
I don't think an offer amount was made. As far as I can tell there is no significant money or even organization in the group of people that are doing their best to manage the project. They're still looking for a way to formalize. I would read this as that stakeholders have not been eager to donate the RethinkDB IP to a foundation, so perhaps there either are commercial parties interested in the IP, or the stakeholders think there might be. This is all conjecture though, unfortunately besides these meeting notes there is no record of interactions with the RethinkDB stakeholders.
- jhugg 10y ago
  So you've got this thing that's of non-zero value. Because the company shut down, and didn't get acquired, it's probably still owned by a largish number of folks. Getting the right approval to sell it for a song would seem tricky without majority shareholders being really into the idea.
  - jkarneges 10y ago
    Yeah, it's hard. I worked on a video game that was canceled 16 years ago, and only recently released in unfinished form. It was very difficult to get consensus among the team to allow a release, and ultimately we had to settle on a non-free license (CC non-commercial. better than nothing). We had some commercial offers, but they were low enough that it made it seem like we could seek a better offer, even though no such better offers really exist. I can easily see the same thing happening with RethinkDB: Buyer: I'll give $10K for all of RethinkDB's IP. Owners: LOL, no thanks. You know how much we spent building this? Buyer: I'll give you $100K. Owners: Ehh starting to turn into real money, maybe we'll hold out for a bigger number? Buyer: I'll give you $1M! Owners: Now we're talking! But, no. Surely if you'll offer this much, there's someone to beat it. Let's go looking. I don't see a way out... Fortunately, they picked a FOSS license. As much as people like to gripe on the AGPL, we have code we can freely modify and use, even commercially. That's pretty awesome, and more than I can say about my much less valuable video game.
- chrisabrams 10y ago
  Imagine trying to move a couch with your hands tied behind your back. That is how it has been for us the past few months. Good things coming soon though.
- databahn 10y ago
  > I would read this as that stakeholders have not been eager to donate the RethinkDB IP to a foundation, so perhaps there either are commercial parties interested in the IP, or the stakeholders think there might be. Can't blame them. I'd do the same thing as an investor. The only way this IP will be open sourced would be if the purchaser of the IP chooses to do so.

eikenberry 10y ago

I don't see the issue with using the name? From what I've read there is no trademark, which means no legal baggage with the name. And the code is Free Software, so there is no requirement to take licensing ownership for the project to continue. It is probably better that they can't as that means it is practically impossible to close source it.

ensignavenger 10y ago
They want to change the license.
- chrisabrams 10y ago
  For many of the foundations we've spoken to, we would need to change the license.
  - bcantrill 10y ago
    As a member of the TOC of the CNCF, I'm happy to advocate getting RethinkDB in the CNCF now and changing the license later -- I would love to get RethinkDB in the CNCF!
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Just curious - why AGPL doesn't fit them? Not implying anything, just wonder about possible cases.
    - jjirsa 10y ago
      Because AGPL is so highly restrictive that most OSS foundations won't have projects use it - they prefer the far more permissive Apache/MIT/BSD licenses
      - drdaeman 10y ago
        Yes, I've heard similar things. But they're really generic - that's why I've asked. I was wondering if there are somewhat more concrete examples. Like... some specific use cases and clauses that conflict with them.

mifeng 10y ago

That's a weird statement given that this group are mostly former RethinkDB folks.

mifeng 10y ago

That's a weird statement given that this group are mostly former RethinkDB folks.