15 ms·

I don't want to weigh in here with a huge value judgement on whether this is the right decision. However, I do want to say that what they're saying regarding SS

by jchw 6y ago

I don't want to weigh in here with a huge value judgement on whether this is the right decision. However, I do want to say that what they're saying regarding SSPL vs AGPL is totally right. One of the biggest sticking points with SSPL is that it's not even really plausibly open source, and it tries to create restrictions that implicate software that is not even "linked" with the program that is licensed under it, which calls into question whether it's even legally enforceable.[1] AGPL is somewhat controversial, but the reasoning for AGPL to exist is chiefly to protect the end user's rights, however misguided that may be in your opinion. In this case Grafana presumably retains the copyright to these programs, so presumably they are not beholden to these restrictions in any way. On the other hand, though, it does mean that other providers will have to distribute their patches back to the community, which is pretty much the entire goal of copyleft open source in the first place. In any case, this is, in my opinion, a lot better than SSPL or the Timescale license. [1]: https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-public-license-is-flawed/ https://www.processmechanics.com/2018/10/18/the-server-side-... edit: wording regarding AGPL was changed, because the claim that considering AGPL as not open source is “somewhat controversial” isn’t quite accurate; it’s more correct to say the license itself is simply controversial.

globular-toast 6y ago
Who I earth would argue that AGPL isn't open source? The kind of people who think open source = free lunch I suppose. It's probably the most open source licence there is.
- jchw 6y ago
  Maybe it isn't so controversial that it is called 'open source' as it is simply controversial. Though GPLv3 + AGPLv3 improves one of the worse problems, which is compatibility with GPL-licensed code. edit: And FWIW, I have dropped this claim from the post with a note, especially since it was not my point anyways.
josephcsible 6y ago
How is it debated whether AGPL is open source? Who says it isn't?
- jchw 6y ago
  It seems like this one sentence of my message has become the focal point of it, which was not the intent. However, I corrected it to be more close to the truth, which is to say that it is merely controversial, not necessarily that its status as an open source license is debatable.
- zokier 6y ago
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721 might be good background reading
  - clankyclanker 6y ago
    The FTP masters’ message (from 14 years ago!) is pretty convincing: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721#17 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721#17 The follow on questions on that thread seem to be fairly hypothetical handwringing, and something I’d expect the FSF to submit an amicus brief, giving their fairly reasonable FAQ answers, if it ever did show up in court. Given that the GPLv3 (and its derivative, the AGPLv3) allow for up to thirty days to remedy shortcomings, your source code being unavailable for a few hours while GitHub is down seems like a non issue.
    - zokier 6y ago
      Sure, I think its mostly settled now. But it definitely was debated at the time.
- sneak 6y ago
  I feel that the AGPL actually reduces the software freedom in a misguided attempt to close the ASP "loophole", as if offering an API from a private fork is something to be prevented. I am a proponent of software freedom, and resultantly I view the AGPL as nonfree.
devmor 6y ago
How is it debatable whether AGPL is open source? Who is debating this? AGPL is so open source that it legally forces open source if you try to close it. Anyone debating that it's not has a screw loose.
- riffraff 6y ago
  GP said SSPL is debatably not open source, not AGPL.
akulkarni 6y ago
(Timescale founder) We actually designed the Timescale License to be _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. It just prevents public clouds from offering TimescaleDB-aaS.
- jchw 6y ago
  I prefer AGPL despite that, mainly because I don’t believe a license that discriminates on use cases in such a direct manner could be compatible with either GPL or DFSG. It’s hard to directly compare virality vs use-case discrimination as far as restrictiveness goes. However, I don’t believe there is a good argument that such licenses can be considered open source.
  - akulkarni 6y ago
    That is fair, and we do not claim that Timescale License is open source. (Our Apache 2 core codebase however is open source.)
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The freedom to run the software for any purpose is #1 on the list of software freedoms that would be called open source. No ifs, no buts, no checking whether you qualify - software is free if and only if you can run it for any purpose, everything else comes only after that basic freedom. Various viral conditions only affect the licensing of developer changes (while still not restricting the developers right to make and use these changes), but violations of this condition impose restrictions also on non-developer users on non-modified code. Timescale license does not provide that, so obviously it's more restrictive than even the most viral of open source licences. To be specific, the sentence "the customer is prohibited, either contractually or technically, from defining, redefining, or modifying the database schema or other structural aspects of database objects," spits in the face of all the ideals of open source. I can respect your decision to choose such a license, there are understandable practical arguments for that, but I can't respect you calling that open source - if you consider that users should be restricted with what they can do with their data schemas, if you include an explicit anti-user-freedom clause, legally mandating software developers to be hostile to their own users - then at least have the guts to openly say that you are against open source (because of all the valid reasons you have, I'm not denying that, you don't have a duty to be pro-open-source), instead of misleadingly labeling your license as such.

by jchw 6y ago

globular-toast 6y ago

Who I earth would argue that AGPL isn't open source? The kind of people who think open source = free lunch I suppose. It's probably the most open source licence there is.

jchw 6y ago
Maybe it isn't so controversial that it is called 'open source' as it is simply controversial. Though GPLv3 + AGPLv3 improves one of the worse problems, which is compatibility with GPL-licensed code. edit: And FWIW, I have dropped this claim from the post with a note, especially since it was not my point anyways.

josephcsible 6y ago

How is it debated whether AGPL is open source? Who says it isn't?

jchw 6y ago
It seems like this one sentence of my message has become the focal point of it, which was not the intent. However, I corrected it to be more close to the truth, which is to say that it is merely controversial, not necessarily that its status as an open source license is debatable.
zokier 6y ago
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721 might be good background reading
- clankyclanker 6y ago
  The FTP masters’ message (from 14 years ago!) is pretty convincing: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721#17 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=495721#17 The follow on questions on that thread seem to be fairly hypothetical handwringing, and something I’d expect the FSF to submit an amicus brief, giving their fairly reasonable FAQ answers, if it ever did show up in court. Given that the GPLv3 (and its derivative, the AGPLv3) allow for up to thirty days to remedy shortcomings, your source code being unavailable for a few hours while GitHub is down seems like a non issue.
  - zokier 6y ago
    Sure, I think its mostly settled now. But it definitely was debated at the time.
sneak 6y ago
I feel that the AGPL actually reduces the software freedom in a misguided attempt to close the ASP "loophole", as if offering an API from a private fork is something to be prevented. I am a proponent of software freedom, and resultantly I view the AGPL as nonfree.

devmor 6y ago

How is it debatable whether AGPL is open source? Who is debating this? AGPL is so open source that it legally forces open source if you try to close it. Anyone debating that it's not has a screw loose.

riffraff 6y ago
GP said SSPL is debatably not open source, not AGPL.

akulkarni 6y ago

(Timescale founder) We actually designed the Timescale License to be _less_ restrictive than AGPL. It contains no virality. It just prevents public clouds from offering TimescaleDB-aaS.

jchw 6y ago
I prefer AGPL despite that, mainly because I don’t believe a license that discriminates on use cases in such a direct manner could be compatible with either GPL or DFSG. It’s hard to directly compare virality vs use-case discrimination as far as restrictiveness goes. However, I don’t believe there is a good argument that such licenses can be considered open source.
- akulkarni 6y ago
  That is fair, and we do not claim that Timescale License is open source. (Our Apache 2 core codebase however is open source.)
PeterisP 6y ago
The freedom to run the software for any purpose is #1 on the list of software freedoms that would be called open source. No ifs, no buts, no checking whether you qualify - software is free if and only if you can run it for any purpose, everything else comes only after that basic freedom. Various viral conditions only affect the licensing of developer changes (while still not restricting the developers right to make and use these changes), but violations of this condition impose restrictions also on non-developer users on non-modified code. Timescale license does not provide that, so obviously it's more restrictive than even the most viral of open source licences. To be specific, the sentence "the customer is prohibited, either contractually or technically, from defining, redefining, or modifying the database schema or other structural aspects of database objects," spits in the face of all the ideals of open source. I can respect your decision to choose such a license, there are understandable practical arguments for that, but I can't respect you calling that open source - if you consider that users should be restricted with what they can do with their data schemas, if you include an explicit anti-user-freedom clause, legally mandating software developers to be hostile to their own users - then at least have the guts to openly say that you are against open source (because of all the valid reasons you have, I'm not denying that, you don't have a duty to be pro-open-source), instead of misleadingly labeling your license as such.