4 ms·

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/Coc

by 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
    - Reelin 6y ago
      > not the official definition of the OSI but more like the global idea behind it The trouble is that it _isn't_ the "global idea behind it" - the idea behind open source is the unrestricted freedom to modify and reuse. Closed source, source available, and open source are quite distinct from one another. Terminology sometimes has well established meaning and that can be very important for effective communication. I actually like proprietary source available software, but it isn't the same thing as open source and anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant of the very well established meaning of that term. Pedantry can be called for, particularly when a monetary incentive exists to confuse and deceive. Consider for example that the definitions of many food products are defined in law and regulated to protect the consumer from deceptive vendors. (To their credit, Timescale gets the terminology right and I appreciate that. It's people in the HN comments section that are incorrectly throwing the term open source about and completely missing the point.)
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand ... it's close enough if you squint Then I think that while you might have read and understood the definition, you seem to have missed the broader idea behind it. > pay to play seems more than fair That's irrelevant. Sure it's fair, but it's fundamentally _not open source_. It's not about gospel or having power over you. It's about communication and well established meanings. Calling a fish a bird doesn't make it a bird, and resisting attempts by others to redefine the language I use is a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. (To their credit, Timescale uses the terminology correctly and I greatly appreciate that. I also think they picked the right licensing model given how things seem to work these days.)
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      > you seem to have missed the broader idea behind it. Funny, I feel that you might have missed the point as well. > It's about communication and well established meanings. Yes, but it's fundamentally impossible to bucket various licenses into what they do and do not do, and what obligations or burdens they place upon the end user. What is Open Source? The OSI includes GPLv3, which is certainly not "free" for a ton of commercial uses. Let's peek at the OSI's FAQ: > This history has led to occasional confusion about the relationship between the two terms. Sometimes people mistakenly assume that users of the term "open source" do not intend to communicate a philosophical point of view via that term, even though many actually do use it that way. Another mistake, which has occasionally been seen since about 2008, is to assume that "free software" refers only to software licensed under copyleft licenses, since that is how the FSF typically releases software, while "open source" refers to software released under so-called permissive (i.e., non-copyleft) licenses. In fact, both terms refer to software released under both kinds of license. > Neither term binds exclusively to one set of associations or another, however; it is always question of context and intended audience. When you sense a potential misunderstanding, you may wish to reassure your audience that the terms are essentially interchangeable, except when being used specifically to discuss the history or connotations of the terminological difference itself. Some people also prefer to use the term "free and open source software" (or FOSS, FLOSS [free, libre and open source software]) for this reason. Okay so, let's recap: A) it's confusing. B) the terms are often interchangeable but context matters. C) not everyone agrees. At this point, the value of any "Open Source Definition" is severely diluted for any considerable purpose. Just because a license meets OSI's definition doesn't mean I should make any assumptions about what I can or cannot do with it, so what value does this provide beyond adding confusion? > Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license? > Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem. I'd argue the confusion is already present. A license is a license is a license. OSI is an organization that says "please don't call your thing Open Source if it doesn't meet our standards" -- I don't care. Whether or not I comply with this polite request changes nothing, offers me no direct benefits. To be clear: I see value in OSI, and everything they provide. They have definitely provided a net benefit to the world. I do not see value in pedantry around the term "open source", those words are so plain and ordinary that gluing any tertiary meaning to them is foolish. It's as subjective as "good code".
- 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.

by mrkurt 6y ago

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
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > not the official definition of the OSI but more like the global idea behind it The trouble is that it _isn't_ the "global idea behind it" - the idea behind open source is the unrestricted freedom to modify and reuse. Closed source, source available, and open source are quite distinct from one another. Terminology sometimes has well established meaning and that can be very important for effective communication. I actually like proprietary source available software, but it isn't the same thing as open source and anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant of the very well established meaning of that term. Pedantry can be called for, particularly when a monetary incentive exists to confuse and deceive. Consider for example that the definitions of many food products are defined in law and regulated to protect the consumer from deceptive vendors. (To their credit, Timescale gets the terminology right and I appreciate that. It's people in the HN comments section that are incorrectly throwing the term open source about and completely missing the point.)
- Reelin 6y ago
  > pedantry around the definition of Open Source, which I understand ... it's close enough if you squint Then I think that while you might have read and understood the definition, you seem to have missed the broader idea behind it. > pay to play seems more than fair That's irrelevant. Sure it's fair, but it's fundamentally _not open source_. It's not about gospel or having power over you. It's about communication and well established meanings. Calling a fish a bird doesn't make it a bird, and resisting attempts by others to redefine the language I use is a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned. (To their credit, Timescale uses the terminology correctly and I greatly appreciate that. I also think they picked the right licensing model given how things seem to work these days.)
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    > you seem to have missed the broader idea behind it. Funny, I feel that you might have missed the point as well. > It's about communication and well established meanings. Yes, but it's fundamentally impossible to bucket various licenses into what they do and do not do, and what obligations or burdens they place upon the end user. What is Open Source? The OSI includes GPLv3, which is certainly not "free" for a ton of commercial uses. Let's peek at the OSI's FAQ: > This history has led to occasional confusion about the relationship between the two terms. Sometimes people mistakenly assume that users of the term "open source" do not intend to communicate a philosophical point of view via that term, even though many actually do use it that way. Another mistake, which has occasionally been seen since about 2008, is to assume that "free software" refers only to software licensed under copyleft licenses, since that is how the FSF typically releases software, while "open source" refers to software released under so-called permissive (i.e., non-copyleft) licenses. In fact, both terms refer to software released under both kinds of license. > Neither term binds exclusively to one set of associations or another, however; it is always question of context and intended audience. When you sense a potential misunderstanding, you may wish to reassure your audience that the terms are essentially interchangeable, except when being used specifically to discuss the history or connotations of the terminological difference itself. Some people also prefer to use the term "free and open source software" (or FOSS, FLOSS [free, libre and open source software]) for this reason. Okay so, let's recap: A) it's confusing. B) the terms are often interchangeable but context matters. C) not everyone agrees. At this point, the value of any "Open Source Definition" is severely diluted for any considerable purpose. Just because a license meets OSI's definition doesn't mean I should make any assumptions about what I can or cannot do with it, so what value does this provide beyond adding confusion? > Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license? > Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem. I'd argue the confusion is already present. A license is a license is a license. OSI is an organization that says "please don't call your thing Open Source if it doesn't meet our standards" -- I don't care. Whether or not I comply with this polite request changes nothing, offers me no direct benefits. To be clear: I see value in OSI, and everything they provide. They have definitely provided a net benefit to the world. I do not see value in pedantry around the term "open source", those words are so plain and ordinary that gluing any tertiary meaning to them is foolish. It's as subjective as "good code".
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.