3 ms·
I wish someone would explain why the licensing issue is not a pertinent discussion here And why those comments have been removed. In any other case that would b
by joekrill 9y ago
I wish someone would explain why the licensing issue is not a pertinent discussion here And why those comments have been removed. In any other case that would be a perfectly reasonable point to consider.
- onewaystreet 9y agoBecause there is no licensing issue because this project hasn't been released. This blog post is a preannouncement. When it's released and its known what license it uses then it will become a pertinent discussion.
- joekrill 9y agoThat line of reasoning could be applied to pretty much every single comment in this thread. Literally. Pick any comment and you could simply respond with: "Well it's not released yet so it's not pertinent". The very fact that the announcement includes "the ultimate goal of contributing it to the open source community later in 2017" makes the licensing issue pertinent, particularly given Facebook's licensing history.
- justinjlynn 9y agoWell, the underlying database RocksDB appears to have been relicensed under the Apache 2.0 license -- we'll have to see what Facebook chooses to do with this project when it's released. No sense getting the pitchforks out yet.