4 ms·

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_Four_E

https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_Four_Essential_Freedoms_of_Free_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#The_guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... The litmus test has always been: "while you may not want your software used in a weapon of mass destruction (or other purpose you don't agree with), it is not free software / open source unless it can be used for that purpose" ... those are items #5 and #6 in the DFSG guidelines. While Mr. Torvalds may have been a much richer man if he prohibited "Linux as a Service", it was the unrestricted freedom given by the GPL which allowed companies like Amazon/AWS to use Linux in the first place.

igneo676 6y ago
This. It boils down to "words mean things". They're fine being firmly on the side of proprietary-with-some-preservation-of-rights; it is _their_ code after all. Their customers get to decide what level of rights they're happy with putting up with. They're not Open Source. They're not Free Software. Being part of those communities requires following the norms of those communities.
- ramses0 6y ago
  (people forget how radical `Copyleft` was at the time of its inception!)
- mfreed 6y ago
  Appreciate the sentiment. We try pretty hard to be careful to not describe the Timescale Licensed code as Open Source, and typically refer to it as "source available". Of course, a big portion of our code is licensed under Apache 2, which clearly does qualify. From the Timescale License, for example: https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-background https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-backgroun... Thanks!
  - igneo676 6y ago
    My comment was more directed toward the grandparent, which had their own set of comments regarding Open Source software. By and large, I'm happy with the announcement and how you're handling these terms carefully. My only nitpick is the repeated statement of: > a source-available license that was open-source in spirit Which, um, it's not. I understand you're trying to thread a needle here and protect your business but it's not following the "spirit" of the community. You're removing a rather fundamental freedom by introducing your own license. That's rather antithetical to the whole idea of Open Source
    - rectang 6y ago
      Companies like TimeScale should call themselves "source available companies" in order to signal that they are offering some degree of access to the source (which is good!) while avoiding some of the by-now well-understood pitfalls of trying to commercialize FOSS offerings.
      - GordonS 6y ago
        I disagree. "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL. The TSL actually lets you do a lot - almost anything, really. It's an open source license (I even used little o's!) that is designed to only prevent cloud providers from selling TimescaleDB as a service.
        cercatrova 6y ago
        Then you could call it a permissive source available license, or other such verbiage. There's no need to continue to call it "open source in spirit."
        scj 6y ago
        "The usage of pork broth in an otherwise vegetarian dish is vegetarian in spirit." I can't help but wonder if they're using the phrase "open source in spirit" to leech the branding of open source (while ironically treating other companies as leeches).
eloff 6y ago
That's a reasonable, if somewhat puritan position, I just think it's not one you should build a company around. If you're considering an OSI open source license for your main product today, don't make that mistake, it may kill your company. I want to point out that having a healthy company behind a product makes it more valuable to its users, regardless of how it's licensed. If you have no interest in building a business around your product, because it's a labor of love or not central to your company, then by all means use a FOSS license. Apache 2 is a great choice.
rzzzt 6y ago
I was missing this wikipedia link from your list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

igneo676 6y ago

This. It boils down to "words mean things". They're fine being firmly on the side of proprietary-with-some-preservation-of-rights; it is _their_ code after all. Their customers get to decide what level of rights they're happy with putting up with. They're not Open Source. They're not Free Software. Being part of those communities requires following the norms of those communities.

ramses0 6y ago
(people forget how radical `Copyleft` was at the time of its inception!)
mfreed 6y ago
Appreciate the sentiment. We try pretty hard to be careful to not describe the Timescale Licensed code as Open Source, and typically refer to it as "source available". Of course, a big portion of our code is licensed under Apache 2, which clearly does qualify. From the Timescale License, for example: https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-background https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-0-backgroun... Thanks!
- igneo676 6y ago
  My comment was more directed toward the grandparent, which had their own set of comments regarding Open Source software. By and large, I'm happy with the announcement and how you're handling these terms carefully. My only nitpick is the repeated statement of: > a source-available license that was open-source in spirit Which, um, it's not. I understand you're trying to thread a needle here and protect your business but it's not following the "spirit" of the community. You're removing a rather fundamental freedom by introducing your own license. That's rather antithetical to the whole idea of Open Source
  - rectang 6y ago
    Companies like TimeScale should call themselves "source available companies" in order to signal that they are offering some degree of access to the source (which is good!) while avoiding some of the by-now well-understood pitfalls of trying to commercialize FOSS offerings.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      I disagree. "source available" already has a long established meaning, and one that it far more restrictive than the TSL. The TSL actually lets you do a lot - almost anything, really. It's an open source license (I even used little o's!) that is designed to only prevent cloud providers from selling TimescaleDB as a service.
      - cercatrova 6y ago
        Then you could call it a permissive source available license, or other such verbiage. There's no need to continue to call it "open source in spirit."
        scj 6y ago
        "The usage of pork broth in an otherwise vegetarian dish is vegetarian in spirit." I can't help but wonder if they're using the phrase "open source in spirit" to leech the branding of open source (while ironically treating other companies as leeches).

eloff 6y ago

That's a reasonable, if somewhat puritan position, I just think it's not one you should build a company around. If you're considering an OSI open source license for your main product today, don't make that mistake, it may kill your company. I want to point out that having a healthy company behind a product makes it more valuable to its users, regardless of how it's licensed. If you have no interest in building a business around your product, because it's a labor of love or not central to your company, then by all means use a FOSS license. Apache 2 is a great choice.

rzzzt 6y ago

I was missing this wikipedia link from your list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition