4 ms·

It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing

It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. I guess everyone is accepting that these clouds are in fact major threats to these projects, as providing these databases as a service is pretty much the only realistic way to get decent revenue numbers. I think it’s good that CockroachDB is preemptively doing this, now that it has become more acceptable a practice.

gtirloni 7y ago
Discussion fatigue is a thing.
- kodablah 7y ago
  Agreed. I disagree with the change and have made my comments in the other situations about taking the good with the bad when you give something away. Just no need to keep harping on it, doesn't mean mindset has shifted.
skybrian 7y ago
Part of it is that companies are getting better at it. There is no attempt at confusion over what "open source" means in this announcement, and automatically converting to open source in three years is clever. I don't see anything to object to, do you?
- mritchie712 7y ago
  GCP just started offering Postgres v11 in beta in April and it was released on 2018-10-18. They skipped v10 (released October 5, 2017). Comparing to Postgres, three years feels like the right balance (i.e. in the zone a cloud provider would want to offer it).
BillinghamJ 7y ago
Imo the key difference here is that they're owning the decision and not trying to paper over the fact that it is no longer OSI Open Source. The three year change is also a big deal in my mind. Would make me a lot more comfortable to adopt knowing it is absolutely guaranteed to become OSI Open Source later.
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  My point is that they are able to own the decision only because the public opinion has accepted it as a new reality. If CockroachDB was the first OSS database company to do this, they would have a much harder time explaining their rationale. MongoDB et al have paved the way for them.
  - bigiain 7y ago
    Completely agree. Cockroach also have the benefit of hindsight to avoid some of the problems Mongo/Redis et al encountered. Calling this a "Business Source Licence" avoids the terminology problems so many people complained about with Mongo's perhaps badly chosen "commons clause" rider on top of (and fundamentally changing) a well know open source license. I think the rolling three year time limit is probably a smart reaction to some of the complaints people have about other companies attempts to tie down some of the rights while providing assurance that there's at least be an option open in the future no matter what happens to the company. I wish them well with this.
- gtirloni 7y ago
  I don't like the change but I understand their point of view. It's also commendable how Cockroack Labs has conducted this in a professional manner.
  - bigiain 7y ago
    Could you expand of what it is you don't like about this change? Without having read and fully understood the actual text of their new license and comparing it to the old one, if we take them at their word where they say "The one and only thing that you cannot do is offer a commercial version of CockroachDB as a service without buying a license." - I find it pretty hard to find anything to "not like" about it... Perhaps the ideological purity of "open source" is being disrupted here (I suspect Stallman isn't a fan of this), but from a pragmatic perspective, it gives me all the rights I need to use it in any way I choose, except to exploit project without contributing back via a license.
dantheman 7y ago
I don't think people think it's a good idea, it's just that: 1. CockroachDB isn't nearly a prolific as Elastic/Redis/Mongo 2. There's not much new to say that hasn't already been said So people don't care as much, less impact, less outrage.
doesnt_know 7y ago
I disagree with your assessment that people are more acceptable. I think it's just more along the lines of the people that care are "over it" and have learned their lesson now. Those that genuinely care about the free software movement either have or will stop contributing to these projects and stop signing CLA's[1] so their work can't be abused in the future (turned into a proprietary product). I personally don't think there is much more to argue about. [1]https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html
tybit 7y ago
They get a lot of credit in my book for keeping it open and not hiding anything behind enterprise / non free components. I think Elasticsearch for example left a bad taste in people’s mouths by adding enterprise only features for something as crucial as security features and mixed their OSS core with it. Basically they’ve kept collateral damage to a minimum as far as I can tell, where as others haven’t.
- jkaplowitz 7y ago
  They're still having enterprise features. The formerly open source core is now using this new non-free (in the sense of FSF or Debian free software guidelines) license, but they are not dropping their enterprise add-on.
  - tybit 7y ago
    That’s disappointing, thanks for the clarification.
skissane 7y ago
> I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. My problem with "Commons Clause" was never with the terms of the license, it was with the naming. If a company is finding open source licensing is posing an obstacle to the success and survival of their business, that's regrettable, but at the end of the day, they have a broad legal right to adopt whatever licensing terms they wish, and they have a legal duty to do whatever they believe to be in the best interest of their shareholders and employees. Calling such a license "Existing Open Source License name with Commons Clause", however, is in my view deceptive naming. It makes it sound like it is the same thing as the existing open source license, possibly with some extra rights added; in reality, the "with" is taking rights away. (Also, when the existing license is Apache, it causes confusion with the Apache Commons project, and makes it sound like the overall license is approved by the Apache Software Foundation, which isn't true.) CockroachDB isn't doing this. They aren't using any deceptive or confusing naming for their new license. And, they are committing to revert each version to an open source license three years after its release. I think it's regrettable the business climate forces them to do this, but (unlike the whole "Commons Clause" business), I'm not complaining about it; and I think that given they've decided to do this, they should be commended for the way they've gone about it.

gtirloni 7y ago

Discussion fatigue is a thing.

kodablah 7y ago
Agreed. I disagree with the change and have made my comments in the other situations about taking the good with the bad when you give something away. Just no need to keep harping on it, doesn't mean mindset has shifted.

skybrian 7y ago

Part of it is that companies are getting better at it. There is no attempt at confusion over what "open source" means in this announcement, and automatically converting to open source in three years is clever. I don't see anything to object to, do you?

mritchie712 7y ago
GCP just started offering Postgres v11 in beta in April and it was released on 2018-10-18. They skipped v10 (released October 5, 2017). Comparing to Postgres, three years feels like the right balance (i.e. in the zone a cloud provider would want to offer it).

BillinghamJ 7y ago

Imo the key difference here is that they're owning the decision and not trying to paper over the fact that it is no longer OSI Open Source. The three year change is also a big deal in my mind. Would make me a lot more comfortable to adopt knowing it is absolutely guaranteed to become OSI Open Source later.

stingraycharles 7y ago
My point is that they are able to own the decision only because the public opinion has accepted it as a new reality. If CockroachDB was the first OSS database company to do this, they would have a much harder time explaining their rationale. MongoDB et al have paved the way for them.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Completely agree. Cockroach also have the benefit of hindsight to avoid some of the problems Mongo/Redis et al encountered. Calling this a "Business Source Licence" avoids the terminology problems so many people complained about with Mongo's perhaps badly chosen "commons clause" rider on top of (and fundamentally changing) a well know open source license. I think the rolling three year time limit is probably a smart reaction to some of the complaints people have about other companies attempts to tie down some of the rights while providing assurance that there's at least be an option open in the future no matter what happens to the company. I wish them well with this.
gtirloni 7y ago
I don't like the change but I understand their point of view. It's also commendable how Cockroack Labs has conducted this in a professional manner.
- bigiain 7y ago
  Could you expand of what it is you don't like about this change? Without having read and fully understood the actual text of their new license and comparing it to the old one, if we take them at their word where they say "The one and only thing that you cannot do is offer a commercial version of CockroachDB as a service without buying a license." - I find it pretty hard to find anything to "not like" about it... Perhaps the ideological purity of "open source" is being disrupted here (I suspect Stallman isn't a fan of this), but from a pragmatic perspective, it gives me all the rights I need to use it in any way I choose, except to exploit project without contributing back via a license.

dantheman 7y ago

I don't think people think it's a good idea, it's just that: 1. CockroachDB isn't nearly a prolific as Elastic/Redis/Mongo 2. There's not much new to say that hasn't already been said So people don't care as much, less impact, less outrage.

doesnt_know 7y ago

I disagree with your assessment that people are more acceptable. I think it's just more along the lines of the people that care are "over it" and have learned their lesson now. Those that genuinely care about the free software movement either have or will stop contributing to these projects and stop signing CLA's[1] so their work can't be abused in the future (turned into a proprietary product). I personally don't think there is much more to argue about. [1]https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html

tybit 7y ago

They get a lot of credit in my book for keeping it open and not hiding anything behind enterprise / non free components. I think Elasticsearch for example left a bad taste in people’s mouths by adding enterprise only features for something as crucial as security features and mixed their OSS core with it. Basically they’ve kept collateral damage to a minimum as far as I can tell, where as others haven’t.

jkaplowitz 7y ago
They're still having enterprise features. The formerly open source core is now using this new non-free (in the sense of FSF or Debian free software guidelines) license, but they are not dropping their enterprise add-on.
- tybit 7y ago
  That’s disappointing, thanks for the clarification.

skissane 7y ago

> I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. My problem with "Commons Clause" was never with the terms of the license, it was with the naming. If a company is finding open source licensing is posing an obstacle to the success and survival of their business, that's regrettable, but at the end of the day, they have a broad legal right to adopt whatever licensing terms they wish, and they have a legal duty to do whatever they believe to be in the best interest of their shareholders and employees. Calling such a license "Existing Open Source License name with Commons Clause", however, is in my view deceptive naming. It makes it sound like it is the same thing as the existing open source license, possibly with some extra rights added; in reality, the "with" is taking rights away. (Also, when the existing license is Apache, it causes confusion with the Apache Commons project, and makes it sound like the overall license is approved by the Apache Software Foundation, which isn't true.) CockroachDB isn't doing this. They aren't using any deceptive or confusing naming for their new license. And, they are committing to revert each version to an open source license three years after its release. I think it's regrettable the business climate forces them to do this, but (unlike the whole "Commons Clause" business), I'm not complaining about it; and I think that given they've decided to do this, they should be commended for the way they've gone about it.