4 ms·

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 y

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.

akulkarni 6y ago
I appreciate this debate, but where do we label the Timescale License as open source? Incidentally, that clause exists as a clear line for value added products and services. Some companies have a restriction that says, "You can't compete with us." That approach struck us as arbitrarily blurry. We took a clear approach that says DML (inserting, querying data) is permitted, but not DDL (creating tables). Again, this is to clearly restrict TimescaleDB-aaS providers and not other companies building true value added products / services on top (e.g., IoT platforms, SaaS companies).
- PeterisP 6y ago
  I apologize, I was sloppy at skimming the licence, it actually does clearly and properly delineate the open source and source-available, describing them appropriately.
mfreed 6y ago
Hi PeterisP, just to avoid any confusion: The sentence you quote is actually meant to -technically- establish a basis for what it means for somebody to run/offer TimescaleDB as part of a value added service (very much allowed) versus a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). There are many, many thousands of companies that use or embed TimescaleDB as part of their service or product offerings, serving huge numbers of customers. We're extremely supportive of their ability to do so. We have no "enterprise features" that are excluded or held back only to paid users. What we aren't supportive of is AWS running "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service" as part of AWS RDS. Because we know they do that! The clause you are quoting helps define some of the legal nuances how we get there, ideally in ways that an engineer would understand. In particular, what it means to be a value added service/product versus just "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service". The alternative legal formulations of this can be found in, e.g. - Confluent Community License ("Licensee is not granted the right to, and Licensee shall not, exercise the License for an Excluded Purpose. For purposes of this Agreement, “Excluded Purpose” means making available any software-as-a-service, platform-as-a-service, infrastructure-as-a-service or other similar online service that competes with Confluent products or services that provide the Software.") - Polyform "Shield" License ("Any purpose is a permitted purpose, except for providing any product that competes with the software or any product the licensor or any of its affiliates provides using the software.") https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/ These are all getting to similar places, but just putting more emphasis of the legal definition of "competition", which we thought would frustrate engineers with its vagueness.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  > a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). That restriction makes the license not Open Source. Open Source licenses MUST allow anyone to run the software, for any reason, by definition. Even "as-a-Service". It's a perfectly fine restriction to have, but it shouldn't be called an Open Source license.
  - cevian 6y ago
    And we never call it Open Source! (Timescale engineer here)

akulkarni 6y ago

I appreciate this debate, but where do we label the Timescale License as open source? Incidentally, that clause exists as a clear line for value added products and services. Some companies have a restriction that says, "You can't compete with us." That approach struck us as arbitrarily blurry. We took a clear approach that says DML (inserting, querying data) is permitted, but not DDL (creating tables). Again, this is to clearly restrict TimescaleDB-aaS providers and not other companies building true value added products / services on top (e.g., IoT platforms, SaaS companies).

PeterisP 6y ago
I apologize, I was sloppy at skimming the licence, it actually does clearly and properly delineate the open source and source-available, describing them appropriately.

mfreed 6y ago

Hi PeterisP, just to avoid any confusion: The sentence you quote is actually meant to -technically- establish a basis for what it means for somebody to run/offer TimescaleDB as part of a value added service (very much allowed) versus a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). There are many, many thousands of companies that use or embed TimescaleDB as part of their service or product offerings, serving huge numbers of customers. We're extremely supportive of their ability to do so. We have no "enterprise features" that are excluded or held back only to paid users. What we aren't supportive of is AWS running "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service" as part of AWS RDS. Because we know they do that! The clause you are quoting helps define some of the legal nuances how we get there, ideally in ways that an engineer would understand. In particular, what it means to be a value added service/product versus just "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service". The alternative legal formulations of this can be found in, e.g. - Confluent Community License ("Licensee is not granted the right to, and Licensee shall not, exercise the License for an Excluded Purpose. For purposes of this Agreement, “Excluded Purpose” means making available any software-as-a-service, platform-as-a-service, infrastructure-as-a-service or other similar online service that competes with Confluent products or services that provide the Software.") - Polyform "Shield" License ("Any purpose is a permitted purpose, except for providing any product that competes with the software or any product the licensor or any of its affiliates provides using the software.") https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/shield/1.0.0/ These are all getting to similar places, but just putting more emphasis of the legal definition of "competition", which we thought would frustrate engineers with its vagueness.

SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
> a company like AWS offering TimescaleDB purely as a DBaaS offering (not allowed). That restriction makes the license not Open Source. Open Source licenses MUST allow anyone to run the software, for any reason, by definition. Even "as-a-Service". It's a perfectly fine restriction to have, but it shouldn't be called an Open Source license.
- cevian 6y ago
  And we never call it Open Source! (Timescale engineer here)