3 ms·

Hi, We have a blog post discussing the license change here: https://earthly.dev/blog/every-open-core-company-should-be-a-source-available-company/ https://earth

• mdaniel 5y ago
  Thank you for that; I would suggest putting that link in the PR description (or a comment) since not everyone who is similarly curious will be on a Show HN thread with the authoritative parties I'm not trying to start trouble or get into a massive licensing thread on HN, but I want to point out that 2/5ths of those exemplar links of BSL success are in fact Apache 2.0 licensed, and not just source-available. I believe you that there are (evidently) parts of Kafka which one must pay money for, but my understanding is that the Apache Software Foundation would not tolerate hosting source-available projects on the apache.org domain nor in the apache GitHub organization. I wish you all the best with your project
  • agbell 5y ago
    Makes sense. Kafka is Apache, confluent platform is open core. So I agree the post is a bit confused about that. We can update it and link in the PR. No intention to misrepresent the facts on our parts, just a small team trying to build stuff.
  • vladaionescu 5y ago
    Hi mdaniel - just to clarify the blog post says that Confluent / Kafka follows an open core model. It doesn't claim that Kafka has a source available license. A few notable switches to source available licenses have been named in another part of the blog post though. Hope that makes it clearer.