5 ms·

>All of these capabilities are being released under the Timescale License, our source-available license that permits broad usage, except for where organizations

>All of these capabilities are being released under the Timescale License, our source-available license that permits broad usage, except for where organizations are providing TimescaleDB-as-a-service. So it's not open-source because AWS hasn't been nice with ElasticSearch and they don't want to be in the same situation?

mrkurt 6y ago
That sounds like open source to me, I bet they're just being really conservative about saying "open source" because there's been so much backlash at MongoDB/Cockroach/etc for similar restrictions. It's restricted OSS because AWS takes things, runs them, and eats up all the potential revenue.
- eitland 6y ago
  > That sounds like open source to me, I bet they're just being really conservative about saying "open source" because people there's been so much backlash at MongoDB/Cockroach/etc for similar restrictions. Open Source has a very defined meaning. Please read up on the history of open source and source available licenses before saying it is all the same. We've been defending it against a number of attacks and we will probably do it again, so please don't get on the wrong side of history ;-) Note: this is not a criticism of Timescale. I can see what they did and respectfully did not pretend it was Open Source. Compared to a proprietary license their license opens a llt of possibilities.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    Frankly the pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand, is incredibly nauseating. Sure, this isn't Open Source by "the definition", but it's close enough if you squint. The difference doesn't impact almost anyone. Are you or someone you love impacted by this licensing decision? Throw in an expiry date, dual licensing (pay to play seems more than fair) and I'm content. History be damned. I'm so sick of it. Just because one group defines it a certain way doesn't make it gospel. The OSI has no power over me.
    - __s 6y ago
      Yep. I've been putting code out for free (MIT) for over a decade. I'm an open source developer. But I'll decide what gatekeeping I participate in for myself thank you Maybe we just need to have "little O" open source. Unless someone's saying "Open Source" don't get in on splitting these hairs
      - akulkarni 6y ago
        "little o" open source is clever.
      - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
        I'd rather have "big F" Free Software: something that ensures that the many efforts I put into development end up benefiting the end users. Right now middlemen are making billions and end users get vendor lock-in.
    - eitland 6y ago
      > Frankly the pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand, is incredibly nauseating. Sure, this isn't Open Source by "the definition", but it's close enough if you squint. The difference doesn't impact almost anyone. Are you or someone you love impacted by this licensing decision? If we had accepted this line of reasoning Open Source had been a synonym for source available by now. For those who wasn't there when it happened you just have to believe us old timers that some companies tried to pass of all kinds of almost-open-source-but-you-are-still-trapped deals almost since the term was coined. Now even Microsoft have learned but it seems the war against misinformation isn't over yet. > Throw in an expiry date, dual licensing (pay to play seems more than fair) and I'm content. History be damned. Fine. I'm not against everything except open source. and I'll happily use it but why why why do you have to call it something that means something else? Why not call it source available or something?
    - tpayet 6y ago
      I am glad to hear there are more and more people that accepts those new kind of open source, not the official definition of the OSI but more like the global idea behind it
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > Please read up on the history of open source Not this patronizing bullshit again. The term "open source" was marketing to take advantage of Netscape releasing their source code. Since since, everyone seems keen on trying to usurp its definition for whatever personal perspective they have that week. To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source" that we're all that much richer for having. The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes of the OSI definition (and I'm not certain how denying cloud providers specifically violates any of the language): https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd
    - pritambaral 6y ago
      > To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source" Please review clause 2.1 (d) and section 2.2. The freedom to run your own modifications in production is not granted. This is a big deal, and rightly a deal-breaking omission for something to be acceptable as either open source or free (as in freedom). > The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes ... _Almost_ all, but not all. Some things work only when all of them work, like freedoms.
      - mfreed 6y ago
        Just for clarification: This limitation only applies to code under the Timescale License, while most of our code is licensed under the Apache 2.
        pritambaral 6y ago
        Of course, this discussion is not about code that _is_ open-source. It is about the code that isn't but some people would like us to believe is — and I'm quoting my parent comment here — "a perfectly acceptable example of "open source"".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- riquito 6y ago
  They don't call it open source either, they call it source-available because open source software can't have restrictions based on commercial use
- pritambaral 6y ago
  The Timescale License does not give you the freedom to run modified versions of the code in production. Pretty big difference compared to Open Source.
gk1 6y ago
Yes. ElasticSearch, Confluent, Redis, and Influx learned this too late.

mrkurt 6y ago

That sounds like open source to me, I bet they're just being really conservative about saying "open source" because there's been so much backlash at MongoDB/Cockroach/etc for similar restrictions. It's restricted OSS because AWS takes things, runs them, and eats up all the potential revenue.

eitland 6y ago
> That sounds like open source to me, I bet they're just being really conservative about saying "open source" because people there's been so much backlash at MongoDB/Cockroach/etc for similar restrictions. Open Source has a very defined meaning. Please read up on the history of open source and source available licenses before saying it is all the same. We've been defending it against a number of attacks and we will probably do it again, so please don't get on the wrong side of history ;-) Note: this is not a criticism of Timescale. I can see what they did and respectfully did not pretend it was Open Source. Compared to a proprietary license their license opens a llt of possibilities.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  Frankly the pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand, is incredibly nauseating. Sure, this isn't Open Source by "the definition", but it's close enough if you squint. The difference doesn't impact almost anyone. Are you or someone you love impacted by this licensing decision? Throw in an expiry date, dual licensing (pay to play seems more than fair) and I'm content. History be damned. I'm so sick of it. Just because one group defines it a certain way doesn't make it gospel. The OSI has no power over me.
  - __s 6y ago
    Yep. I've been putting code out for free (MIT) for over a decade. I'm an open source developer. But I'll decide what gatekeeping I participate in for myself thank you Maybe we just need to have "little O" open source. Unless someone's saying "Open Source" don't get in on splitting these hairs
    - akulkarni 6y ago
      "little o" open source is clever.
    - eeZah7Ux 6y ago
      I'd rather have "big F" Free Software: something that ensures that the many efforts I put into development end up benefiting the end users. Right now middlemen are making billions and end users get vendor lock-in.
  - eitland 6y ago
    > Frankly the pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand, is incredibly nauseating. Sure, this isn't Open Source by "the definition", but it's close enough if you squint. The difference doesn't impact almost anyone. Are you or someone you love impacted by this licensing decision? If we had accepted this line of reasoning Open Source had been a synonym for source available by now. For those who wasn't there when it happened you just have to believe us old timers that some companies tried to pass of all kinds of almost-open-source-but-you-are-still-trapped deals almost since the term was coined. Now even Microsoft have learned but it seems the war against misinformation isn't over yet. > Throw in an expiry date, dual licensing (pay to play seems more than fair) and I'm content. History be damned. Fine. I'm not against everything except open source. and I'll happily use it but why why why do you have to call it something that means something else? Why not call it source available or something?
  - tpayet 6y ago
    I am glad to hear there are more and more people that accepts those new kind of open source, not the official definition of the OSI but more like the global idea behind it
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > Please read up on the history of open source Not this patronizing bullshit again. The term "open source" was marketing to take advantage of Netscape releasing their source code. Since since, everyone seems keen on trying to usurp its definition for whatever personal perspective they have that week. To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source" that we're all that much richer for having. The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes of the OSI definition (and I'm not certain how denying cloud providers specifically violates any of the language): https://opensource.org/docs/osd https://opensource.org/docs/osd
  - pritambaral 6y ago
    > To the rest of the community outside of the OSI and FSF (which is 99%+ of the software community), this is a perfectly acceptable example of "open source" Please review clause 2.1 (d) and section 2.2. The freedom to run your own modifications in production is not granted. This is a big deal, and rightly a deal-breaking omission for something to be acceptable as either open source or free (as in freedom). > The Timescale license checks almost all the boxes ... _Almost_ all, but not all. Some things work only when all of them work, like freedoms.
    - mfreed 6y ago
      Just for clarification: This limitation only applies to code under the Timescale License, while most of our code is licensed under the Apache 2.
      - pritambaral 6y ago
        Of course, this discussion is not about code that _is_ open-source. It is about the code that isn't but some people would like us to believe is — and I'm quoting my parent comment here — "a perfectly acceptable example of "open source"".
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
riquito 6y ago
They don't call it open source either, they call it source-available because open source software can't have restrictions based on commercial use
pritambaral 6y ago
The Timescale License does not give you the freedom to run modified versions of the code in production. Pretty big difference compared to Open Source.

gk1 6y ago

Yes. ElasticSearch, Confluent, Redis, and Influx learned this too late.