3 ms·

I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction, but it certainly isn't toxic. Licensing in general obviously matters, and my view is in this case AGP

I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction, but it certainly isn't toxic. Licensing in general obviously matters, and my view is in this case AGPL would be suboptimal but fine. In any case, I think it's important to move past these issues ASAP in a way that unites the community, and move forward with the project. RethinkDB may not have been successful as a business, but it seems very promising to me as an open-source project. I'm very excited to see it bloom in its new life (and will try to contribute myself if/when time permits).

insaneirish 10y ago
> I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction, but it certainly isn't toxic. Let me first say that I respect you and RethinkDB immensely. Rather than comment on toxicity, I'll state a fact: in the company I work for, which makes heavy use of open source software, is relatively sophisticated, and is legally cautious and conservative, AGPL software is verboten. It's a non-starter. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. So, in the absence of a company that can actually offer a valid license to the product, there's no chance of considering it, let alone using it. This may seem overly cautious and FUD inducing, but it is how things work in our litigious world.
- mrkurt 10y ago
  I think your company is already in the minority, honestly. IBM is big and stodgy, but they got past the agpl, as have their customers that I had any contact with. agpl + Apache drivers seems perfectly workable to me ... though I agree with you, and also Slava's take of "suboptimal".
- openmosix 10y ago
  +1 here. We use all sort of opensource software, we encourage open source software - but AGPL software is off limits.
- jkarneges 10y ago
  I think he means that even though the license is unsuitable for some users, it is fine for others. Probably most users are fine with the license actually, otherwise RethinkDB wouldn't be as popular as it is. After all, RethinkDB has been AGPL for years. It is unfortunate that some users, such as yourself, must be left out, with no apparent remedy. But this does not mean RethinkDB cannot succeed elsewhere.
- arximboldi 10y ago
  I am curious: - Does your company contribute to any of the non-AGPL pieces of software it uses, either in code or money? - Does it have propietary patches to these software that it does not contribute back? - Has it published any open source packages of its own?
  - smw 10y ago
    Mine does (EMC, now Dell) [1]. We've had serious issues getting lawyers to sign off on AGPL. 1. https://codedellemc.com/ https://codedellemc.com/
  - x0x0 10y ago
    My example does. They contribute pretty heavily to apache licensed software and have a small but popular in the right niche high performance filesystem that they built. AGPL is an immediate no; GPL requires written approval from chief in house counsel and he will almost certainly say no.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
notacoward 10y ago
> I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction I agree, not just in principle but because I've seen it happen. Where we might disagree is that I don't assume that's a bad thing. Who are the people/companies who will reject something because of AGPL? Would they have contributed under a different license? Overwhelmingly no. Whatever changes they made, if any, wouldn't have been available to the project anyway. If they want to pay for the software, or support etc., then they'd probably do so even if it's completely proprietary. For them there's dual licensing. Anyone who might have wanted to contribute still has a way to do so. Ditto for anyone who might have wanted to pay. So, who's left? Those who might use but neither contribute nor pay. Are such users a net positive? They're good for the ego, but the support load associated with such users can kill a resource-constrained project. I've seen that happen too. Keeping them away might not be a bad thing. Maybe AGPL is "toxic" in the same way that chlorine is, keeping the pool clean without harming the swimmers. And yes, some people are extra-sensitive to either. ;)

insaneirish 10y ago

> I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction, but it certainly isn't toxic. Let me first say that I respect you and RethinkDB immensely. Rather than comment on toxicity, I'll state a fact: in the company I work for, which makes heavy use of open source software, is relatively sophisticated, and is legally cautious and conservative, AGPL software is verboten. It's a non-starter. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. So, in the absence of a company that can actually offer a valid license to the product, there's no chance of considering it, let alone using it. This may seem overly cautious and FUD inducing, but it is how things work in our litigious world.

mrkurt 10y ago
I think your company is already in the minority, honestly. IBM is big and stodgy, but they got past the agpl, as have their customers that I had any contact with. agpl + Apache drivers seems perfectly workable to me ... though I agree with you, and also Slava's take of "suboptimal".
openmosix 10y ago
+1 here. We use all sort of opensource software, we encourage open source software - but AGPL software is off limits.
jkarneges 10y ago
I think he means that even though the license is unsuitable for some users, it is fine for others. Probably most users are fine with the license actually, otherwise RethinkDB wouldn't be as popular as it is. After all, RethinkDB has been AGPL for years. It is unfortunate that some users, such as yourself, must be left out, with no apparent remedy. But this does not mean RethinkDB cannot succeed elsewhere.
arximboldi 10y ago
I am curious: - Does your company contribute to any of the non-AGPL pieces of software it uses, either in code or money? - Does it have propietary patches to these software that it does not contribute back? - Has it published any open source packages of its own?
- smw 10y ago
  Mine does (EMC, now Dell) [1]. We've had serious issues getting lawyers to sign off on AGPL. 1. https://codedellemc.com/ https://codedellemc.com/
- x0x0 10y ago
  My example does. They contribute pretty heavily to apache licensed software and have a small but popular in the right niche high performance filesystem that they built. AGPL is an immediate no; GPL requires written approval from chief in house counsel and he will almost certainly say no.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

notacoward 10y ago

> I think AGPL introduces some measurable adoption friction I agree, not just in principle but because I've seen it happen. Where we might disagree is that I don't assume that's a bad thing. Who are the people/companies who will reject something because of AGPL? Would they have contributed under a different license? Overwhelmingly no. Whatever changes they made, if any, wouldn't have been available to the project anyway. If they want to pay for the software, or support etc., then they'd probably do so even if it's completely proprietary. For them there's dual licensing. Anyone who might have wanted to contribute still has a way to do so. Ditto for anyone who might have wanted to pay. So, who's left? Those who might use but neither contribute nor pay. Are such users a net positive? They're good for the ego, but the support load associated with such users can kill a resource-constrained project. I've seen that happen too. Keeping them away might not be a bad thing. Maybe AGPL is "toxic" in the same way that chlorine is, keeping the pool clean without harming the swimmers. And yes, some people are extra-sensitive to either. ;)