4 ms·

[Timescale co-founder here] Hi Eric, thanks for taking a close look at our license. I'd like to dispel some misconceptions: The core of TimescaleDB is Apache

[Timescale co-founder here] Hi Eric, thanks for taking a close look at our license. I'd like to dispel some misconceptions: The core of TimescaleDB is Apache2. Advanced features are under the Timescale License. Regarding this: the customer is prohibited, either contractually or technically, from defining, redefining, or modifying the database schema or other structural aspects of database objects, such as through use of the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces, in a Timescale Database utilized by such Value Added Products or Services. My read is that if you let a customer do anything that adds a custom field, or table, or database, or trigger, or anything that is "structural" (even in the regular relational stuff) anywhere in your database (metrics or not), you are in violation. There doesn't seem to be a distinction about whether this is "direct" control or not, or whether a setting indirectly adds a trigger. I don't want to be in a courtroom debating whether a new metric is a "structural change!" That's not correct, and we took pains to clarify that in the license: 3.5 "Timescale Data Definition Interfaces" means SQL commands and other interfaces of the Timescale Software that can be used to define or modify the database schema and other structural aspects of database objects in a Timescale Database, including Data Definition Language (DDL) commands such as CREATE, DROP, ALTER, TRUNCATE, COMMENT, and RENAME. [0] Strictly speaking, if you provide Data Definition Interfaces (DDL) to customers via a SaaS service (ie you are running a TimescaleDBaaS - which applies to < 0.000001% of all possible users) you are in violation of the license. But otherwise you are fine. If you are looking for more votes of confidence, today there are literally millions of active TimescaleDB instances, including by large companies like Walmart, Comcast, IBM, Cisco, Electronic Arts, Bosch, Samsung, and many many smaller ones. [2] If you have any other questions, I'm happy to answer them here, or offline (ajay at timescale dot com). [1] https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-3-5-timescale-data-definition-interfaces https://www.timescale.com/legal/licenses#section-3-5-timesca... [2] https://www.timescale.com/ https://www.timescale.com/

ericb 5y ago
Are you sure? The phrasing "such as" in "such as through use of the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces" looks to me like it can be interpreted as saying "Including but not limited to"
- akulkarni 5y ago
  Yes :-) It was a little cumbersome to list every DDL SQL command, which why it uses that language. But that is the intent. If you have a specific question, happy to answer it here (or offline) Also, we used this language deliberately to provide more clarity. DDL vs DML is a pretty clear line to most developers who use TimescaleDB (vs some other companies who use language like, "you can't compete with us" etc).
  - ericb 5y ago
    Right, I'm onboard with your stated intent, and the lovely database, and even sympathetic on the cloud provider threat. My interpretation doesn't hinge on the DDL/DML question. If what you said is your intent, the legal language used is wrong and you should fix it. Consider this a bug report. Here's a source! https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1867087701-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... In order for the license to be usable, you need to be limitative here.
    - akulkarni 5y ago
      Thanks for the feedback, will pass along :-)
  - mst 5y ago
    The issue isn't the DDL vs. DML. The issue is the 'such as', which reads to me as indicating that providing an API endpoint that can add fields would also be a way of letting the customer modify the database schema and therefore covered. Which means that building a SaaS app backed by timescale that has any level of customisation exposed to the user appears to be prohibited. This seems a rather stronger level of prohibition than stopping people directly competing with you, and would suggest that if it's intended it would help to make it more explicit, and if it isn't then an explicit statement of that would be worth adding.
    - akulkarni 5y ago
shadowwolf007 5y ago
So this is a very relevant question and I have been trying to figure out if I need to migrate off timescaledb asap coincidentally over the last 2 weeks (We're pre-production anyway, so it's the time to do so!). Doing so has been super low priority, but since you're here .... :) If I have a table that records timeseries data and then another table that has a customer-provided extensible set of metadata where a customer can define columns and other related tabular data, would that violate the license? The customer doesn't have a direct, like, psql level of access but the API intentionally provides a very similar level of interaction. Does this qualify as providing Data Definition Interfaces? If none of those additional columns and such appear on tables set up as timescale tables does that make any difference?
- mfreed 5y ago
  One clarification to the above discussion -- about whether these restrictions also get applied to "even the regular relational stuff" -- which I think is relevant to you (and parent): The Timescale License only covers the TimescaleDB code. Postgres code continues to be covered by the OSS PostgreSQL License [0]. So putting aside the question about API vs. psql level (again, the Timescale License was drafted to enabled this for "Value Added Services", e.g., where "such value-added products or services are not primarily database storage or operations products or services"), this license wouldn't apply for non-Timescale code. [Timescale co-founder here] [0] https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/blob/master/NOTICE https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/blob/master/NOTICE
  - ericb 5y ago
    Not the parent, but great to hear that clarification! By the way, doubt I would complain if Prometheus didn't look impressive. :-) One other bug report on the license language front, this language could be construed to prohibit uses like Prometheus--unless there's a definition of operations products I missed (possible). > are not primarily database storage or operations products Suggested edit: > are not primarily database storage or *database operations products*
    - 5y ago

ericb 5y ago

Are you sure? The phrasing "such as" in "such as through use of the Timescale Data Definition Interfaces" looks to me like it can be interpreted as saying "Including but not limited to"

akulkarni 5y ago
Yes :-) It was a little cumbersome to list every DDL SQL command, which why it uses that language. But that is the intent. If you have a specific question, happy to answer it here (or offline) Also, we used this language deliberately to provide more clarity. DDL vs DML is a pretty clear line to most developers who use TimescaleDB (vs some other companies who use language like, "you can't compete with us" etc).
- ericb 5y ago
  Right, I'm onboard with your stated intent, and the lovely database, and even sympathetic on the cloud provider threat. My interpretation doesn't hinge on the DDL/DML question. If what you said is your intent, the legal language used is wrong and you should fix it. Consider this a bug report. Here's a source! https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=17-USC-1867087701-364936160&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840... In order for the license to be usable, you need to be limitative here.
  - akulkarni 5y ago
    Thanks for the feedback, will pass along :-)
- mst 5y ago
  The issue isn't the DDL vs. DML. The issue is the 'such as', which reads to me as indicating that providing an API endpoint that can add fields would also be a way of letting the customer modify the database schema and therefore covered. Which means that building a SaaS app backed by timescale that has any level of customisation exposed to the user appears to be prohibited. This seems a rather stronger level of prohibition than stopping people directly competing with you, and would suggest that if it's intended it would help to make it more explicit, and if it isn't then an explicit statement of that would be worth adding.
  - akulkarni 5y ago

shadowwolf007 5y ago

So this is a very relevant question and I have been trying to figure out if I need to migrate off timescaledb asap coincidentally over the last 2 weeks (We're pre-production anyway, so it's the time to do so!). Doing so has been super low priority, but since you're here .... :) If I have a table that records timeseries data and then another table that has a customer-provided extensible set of metadata where a customer can define columns and other related tabular data, would that violate the license? The customer doesn't have a direct, like, psql level of access but the API intentionally provides a very similar level of interaction. Does this qualify as providing Data Definition Interfaces? If none of those additional columns and such appear on tables set up as timescale tables does that make any difference?

mfreed 5y ago
One clarification to the above discussion -- about whether these restrictions also get applied to "even the regular relational stuff" -- which I think is relevant to you (and parent): The Timescale License only covers the TimescaleDB code. Postgres code continues to be covered by the OSS PostgreSQL License [0]. So putting aside the question about API vs. psql level (again, the Timescale License was drafted to enabled this for "Value Added Services", e.g., where "such value-added products or services are not primarily database storage or operations products or services"), this license wouldn't apply for non-Timescale code. [Timescale co-founder here] [0] https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/blob/master/NOTICE https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/blob/master/NOTICE
- ericb 5y ago
  Not the parent, but great to hear that clarification! By the way, doubt I would complain if Prometheus didn't look impressive. :-) One other bug report on the license language front, this language could be construed to prohibit uses like Prometheus--unless there's a definition of operations products I missed (possible). > are not primarily database storage or operations products Suggested edit: > are not primarily database storage or *database operations products*
  - 5y ago