3 ms·

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use.

by mfreed 5y ago

The first line you quote is in a section defining rights for Internal Use (Section 2.1.a) If you are providing access to your customers, it's not internal use. The second quote is about providing access to customers (Section 2.1.b). Note it certainly allows SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETEs (those are DML operations), it prohibits you from allowing customers to do things like `CREATE TABLE` (those are DDL operations). https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-2-1-grant https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-2-1-grant This is our approach to define what it means to provide "TimescaleDB-as-a-Service" from a more technical perspective, that hopefully a developer can grok, as opposed to just stating something about "you can't compete", which is open to broader interpretation.

woofie11 5y ago
I think you've done a very good job of doing something which a developer will grog. I think you've done a very poor job with doing something which a court will grog the same way. I think that's where the astronomical potential liability comes in with respect to using your product. A lot of 2.1.a versus 2.1.b will hinge on details of how a court will read ambiguous language like "not primarily database storage or operations products". I assume you wanted to say "not primarily database storage or database operations products." However, it could just as easily read "not primarily operations or database storage products." At that point, "operations" has broadly different meanings (e.g. business operations?). And aside from that, if I'm making a medical database product, is that primarily "database storage?" Probably. The problem with ambiguous legal language is that: 1) You, or a vulture successor, can plausibly sue anyone who does just about anything. 2) If we assume you vulture successor has a 20% chance of winning $20 million, the outcomes is a $4 million settlement. Which is why good lawyers avoid it. The whole document is just bad legal language. But even if it was GOOD legal language, it wouldn't matter. The difference between a custom-form license and a standard OSI license is that competent customers need to spend a few grand on legal fees before they use yours. I understand what you're trying to do, but every other organization that went that way eventually went with a standard license. You'd be better off doing likewise. Or if you really can't, you're better off working to make a community-recognized standard form license which is used by enough products that it has a standard, common, recognized legal understanding. I know the risks of the AGPL, and where it will or won't hurt me. I don't know the risks of your license, except that they're obviously huge.
- GordonS 5y ago
  I don't know about the US specifically, but here in Europe the courts take a dim view of trying to weasel around wording when the intent is clear - if the intent is clear, that's the most import thing.
  - woofie11 5y ago
    Even with the EU, there isn't a "here in Europe." Europe has common law jurisdiction, like Ireland, and civil law jurisdictions, like France, and there isn't uniformity. I don't know about civil law jurisdictions, but in the US, this license is a liability bomb.
- mfreed 5y ago
  Realize you might not be comfortable with the license. For others, I can share at least that it was drafted by some of the most experienced copyright & IP counsel there is, including with significant open-source licensing experience. But anyway, we're providing it as free software, so if you don't feel comfortable with it, you are certainly free to use our Apache-2 version. Cheers!
  - woofie11 5y ago
    Words I live by: "Never Take Legal Advice from Opposing Council." Terms-of-service and Facebook's employment agreement were generally drafted by experienced counsel. That means they do a good job of protecting the person on the opposite side of the table, not of protecting me. And the term isn't "free software." It's "freemium software." It's exactly this sort of comment which makes me distrust TimescaleDB.

by mfreed 5y ago

woofie11 5y ago

I think you've done a very good job of doing something which a developer will grog. I think you've done a very poor job with doing something which a court will grog the same way. I think that's where the astronomical potential liability comes in with respect to using your product. A lot of 2.1.a versus 2.1.b will hinge on details of how a court will read ambiguous language like "not primarily database storage or operations products". I assume you wanted to say "not primarily database storage or database operations products." However, it could just as easily read "not primarily operations or database storage products." At that point, "operations" has broadly different meanings (e.g. business operations?). And aside from that, if I'm making a medical database product, is that primarily "database storage?" Probably. The problem with ambiguous legal language is that: 1) You, or a vulture successor, can plausibly sue anyone who does just about anything. 2) If we assume you vulture successor has a 20% chance of winning $20 million, the outcomes is a $4 million settlement. Which is why good lawyers avoid it. The whole document is just bad legal language. But even if it was GOOD legal language, it wouldn't matter. The difference between a custom-form license and a standard OSI license is that competent customers need to spend a few grand on legal fees before they use yours. I understand what you're trying to do, but every other organization that went that way eventually went with a standard license. You'd be better off doing likewise. Or if you really can't, you're better off working to make a community-recognized standard form license which is used by enough products that it has a standard, common, recognized legal understanding. I know the risks of the AGPL, and where it will or won't hurt me. I don't know the risks of your license, except that they're obviously huge.

GordonS 5y ago
I don't know about the US specifically, but here in Europe the courts take a dim view of trying to weasel around wording when the intent is clear - if the intent is clear, that's the most import thing.
- woofie11 5y ago
  Even with the EU, there isn't a "here in Europe." Europe has common law jurisdiction, like Ireland, and civil law jurisdictions, like France, and there isn't uniformity. I don't know about civil law jurisdictions, but in the US, this license is a liability bomb.
mfreed 5y ago
Realize you might not be comfortable with the license. For others, I can share at least that it was drafted by some of the most experienced copyright & IP counsel there is, including with significant open-source licensing experience. But anyway, we're providing it as free software, so if you don't feel comfortable with it, you are certainly free to use our Apache-2 version. Cheers!
- woofie11 5y ago
  Words I live by: "Never Take Legal Advice from Opposing Council." Terms-of-service and Facebook's employment agreement were generally drafted by experienced counsel. That means they do a good job of protecting the person on the opposite side of the table, not of protecting me. And the term isn't "free software." It's "freemium software." It's exactly this sort of comment which makes me distrust TimescaleDB.