4 ms·

I wonder, what keeps a project like postgresql "healthy" and true to its open source/free software roots, and what makes redis/elasticsearch/etc go down this ne

I wonder, what keeps a project like postgresql "healthy" and true to its open source/free software roots, and what makes redis/elasticsearch/etc go down this new path of "source available" licenses? From 30000 ft, they are all just data management software. Is it just that Pg is older? Is the code too complex? Do they simply have more diverse group of contributors? And, how do we keep Pg and other projects 'healthy'?

mr_tristan 6y ago
PostgreSQL wasn't developed by a single company, in fact, it came from Berkeley, with public funding: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html Even today, it's contributors come from all over the place: https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ I agree with the final statements of the article: > Open source-licensed projects with a non-profit home, neutral trademark ownership, and multiple significant contributors are less likely to face pressures to relicense. Projects that are the main revenue generator for a ‘single source’ for-profit company have different dynamics. To "protect" important projects, the more we can find a way to keep them running via a non-profit structure would probably help most of them. This is why I think the Rust Foundation is an important step for that language, and gives me optimism. It's the right approach: basically, become supported by multiple businesses, effectively not putting all your eggs in one basket. I hope the Rust Foundation succeeds and becomes a paradigm more popular than "try to build a business on my open source project" concept.
- wheresmycraisin 6y ago
  Also, perhaps standardization could play a role. If the Redis / Mongo / etc were standardized by a neutral party, it may make it riskier for big techs to make their on proprietary or incompatible modifications. Though I guess this doesn't apply too much to postgresql, since any serious RDBMS is much more than just SQL standards compliant.

mr_tristan 6y ago

PostgreSQL wasn't developed by a single company, in fact, it came from Berkeley, with public funding: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/history.html Even today, it's contributors come from all over the place: https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ https://www.postgresql.org/community/contributors/ I agree with the final statements of the article: > Open source-licensed projects with a non-profit home, neutral trademark ownership, and multiple significant contributors are less likely to face pressures to relicense. Projects that are the main revenue generator for a ‘single source’ for-profit company have different dynamics. To "protect" important projects, the more we can find a way to keep them running via a non-profit structure would probably help most of them. This is why I think the Rust Foundation is an important step for that language, and gives me optimism. It's the right approach: basically, become supported by multiple businesses, effectively not putting all your eggs in one basket. I hope the Rust Foundation succeeds and becomes a paradigm more popular than "try to build a business on my open source project" concept.

wheresmycraisin 6y ago
Also, perhaps standardization could play a role. If the Redis / Mongo / etc were standardized by a neutral party, it may make it riskier for big techs to make their on proprietary or incompatible modifications. Though I guess this doesn't apply too much to postgresql, since any serious RDBMS is much more than just SQL standards compliant.