4 ms·

Facebook relicenses RocksDB under Apache 2 license

173 points by spicyj 9y ago

rogerb 9y ago
Nice to see Facebook taking this feedback to heart. Thanks!
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnyfaehell 9y ago
  I am curious why do you think they are taking it to heart instead of just complying. I think when something goes under the Apache Foundation it is no longer owned by Facebook but the Apache Foundation, so they may have been required to. Edit: Nevermind I thought RocksDB was a project already given to ASF.
rurban 9y ago
React also on Monday. https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191
- jchanimal 9y ago
  This is the one I'm more interested in. Storage engines are more easily swappable.
- danabramov 9y ago
  To be clear, as of now I have not heard of intentions to relicense React. I will try to follow up on Monday and see if I can get any official response out, but I wouldn’t count on this happening for React as well.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  I was very interested in React. When I saw it was by Facebook, my first instinct was that there must be something shady about it but I didn't write it off completely. Then the license issue came to light. Even if they change it now, it still has the stink of their tainted name all over it. I'm never touching it.
- crudbug 9y ago
  The license was our top reason to go with Angular.
boulos 9y ago
Amusingly, the commit removes the LICENSE file which had the original LevelDb (from Google) copyright and LICENSE notice: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd82fe1f1af5de909dad769e6#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95aL9 https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd... Did RocksDB finally remove every last piece of code from LevelDB? Disclosure: I work at Google, but IANAL.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  The LevelDB copyright notice is still in place, so presumably no.
  - boulos 9y ago
    (I meant that a bit rhetorically, sorry) Definitely not :). In fact, all the LevelDB copyright notices now point to a dangling LICENSE file: > // Copyright (c) 2011 The LevelDB Authors. All rights reserved. > // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be > // found in the LICENSE file. See the AUTHORS file for names of contributors. CONTRIBUTING (https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING...) presumably needs updating as well to cover the variations (including the GPLv2 addition that happened a few months ago apparently).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fermigier 9y ago
New wording: "This source code is licensed under BOTH the GPLv2 (found in the LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License" (emphasis on "BOTH" mine). -> IANAL, nor a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "EITHER" instead of "BOTH" ?
- richardwhiuk 9y ago
  No it should be BOTH. You can use it under the terms of either, but it is licensed under both. If it was licensed under EITHER the obvious follow up is - Well which is it actually licensed under? IANAL either but I am a native UK English speaker.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wjnc 9y ago
  Is this the sought distinction? "This source code is licensed [to you] under EITHER" whereas "Th[e] source is licensed under BOTH". The "this" hints at a genitive that's not there but still feels there. (Linguistics class was a long time ago btw.)
davix55 9y ago
Assholes. License everything under Apache 2. Greedy fucks. Google has everything under MIT license
- sctb 9y ago
  Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rdslw 9y ago
Does it mean that the whole megathread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14779881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14779881 didnt notice it, and toppost there is wrong? ;)
- kronos29296 9y ago
  React hasn't been relicensed.(Maybe it will soon) This one is also fairly recent. I may be wrong but many FB projects seem to be using this license. It is just that React is popular enough to cause problems orgs using it.

173 points by spicyj 9y ago

rogerb 9y ago

Nice to see Facebook taking this feedback to heart. Thanks!

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
johnnyfaehell 9y ago
I am curious why do you think they are taking it to heart instead of just complying. I think when something goes under the Apache Foundation it is no longer owned by Facebook but the Apache Foundation, so they may have been required to. Edit: Nevermind I thought RocksDB was a project already given to ASF.

rurban 9y ago

React also on Monday. https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191

jchanimal 9y ago
This is the one I'm more interested in. Storage engines are more easily swappable.
danabramov 9y ago
To be clear, as of now I have not heard of intentions to relicense React. I will try to follow up on Monday and see if I can get any official response out, but I wouldn’t count on this happening for React as well.
jasonkostempski 9y ago
I was very interested in React. When I saw it was by Facebook, my first instinct was that there must be something shady about it but I didn't write it off completely. Then the license issue came to light. Even if they change it now, it still has the stink of their tainted name all over it. I'm never touching it.
crudbug 9y ago
The license was our top reason to go with Angular.

boulos 9y ago

Amusingly, the commit removes the LICENSE file which had the original LevelDb (from Google) copyright and LICENSE notice: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd82fe1f1af5de909dad769e6#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95aL9 https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd... Did RocksDB finally remove every last piece of code from LevelDB? Disclosure: I work at Google, but IANAL.

Steeeve 9y ago
The LevelDB copyright notice is still in place, so presumably no.
- boulos 9y ago
  (I meant that a bit rhetorically, sorry) Definitely not :). In fact, all the LevelDB copyright notices now point to a dangling LICENSE file: > // Copyright (c) 2011 The LevelDB Authors. All rights reserved. > // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be > // found in the LICENSE file. See the AUTHORS file for names of contributors. CONTRIBUTING (https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING...) presumably needs updating as well to cover the variations (including the GPLv2 addition that happened a few months ago apparently).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fermigier 9y ago

New wording: "This source code is licensed under BOTH the GPLv2 (found in the LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License" (emphasis on "BOTH" mine). -> IANAL, nor a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "EITHER" instead of "BOTH" ?

richardwhiuk 9y ago
No it should be BOTH. You can use it under the terms of either, but it is licensed under both. If it was licensed under EITHER the obvious follow up is - Well which is it actually licensed under? IANAL either but I am a native UK English speaker.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wjnc 9y ago
Is this the sought distinction? "This source code is licensed [to you] under EITHER" whereas "Th[e] source is licensed under BOTH". The "this" hints at a genitive that's not there but still feels there. (Linguistics class was a long time ago btw.)

davix55 9y ago

Assholes. License everything under Apache 2. Greedy fucks. Google has everything under MIT license

sctb 9y ago
Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rdslw 9y ago

Does it mean that the whole megathread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14779881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14779881 didnt notice it, and toppost there is wrong? ;)

kronos29296 9y ago
React hasn't been relicensed.(Maybe it will soon) This one is also fairly recent. I may be wrong but many FB projects seem to be using this license. It is just that React is popular enough to cause problems orgs using it.