3 ms·
What you can also read on that linked page is that the only thing you cannot do when using the Timescale license is basically pull an AWS move and sell Timescal
by TinyCuteGorilla 5y ago
What you can also read on that linked page is that the only thing you cannot do when using the Timescale license is basically pull an AWS move and sell TimescaleDB as a service. So when you say "closed source" and "proprietary" that's just really not a good description of TImescaleDB imo. (on the other hand you can grab the Apache version and sell it as a DBaaS etc)
- ensignavenger 5y ago>>"closed source" and "proprietary" that's just really not a good description of TimescaleDB I suppose we can agree to disagree on this. Perhaps "Open Core, Source Available" is a term you can agree to? I think my original comment was clear that part of Timescale is Open Source, or in other words Open Core. >> the only thing you cannot do when using the Timescale license is basically pull an AWS move and sell TimescaleDB as a service Actually, by virtue of this, it prevents me from paying some one else to host a Timescale fork for me... this in turn is a major stumbling block to creating a viable fork if my business interests diverge from Timescales's business interests for any reason. Thus leading to Vendor Lock-in, as per my original comment.
- TinyCuteGorilla 5y agoYeah I suppose that's a valid concern. Even though, you can still choose between major cloud providers inside Timescale Cloud (AWS / GCP currently as I know) so there's that. But it needs to be through Timescale the company (unless you are ok with managing it yourself because in that case you can use the Timescale license and go to any hosting provider). So yeah I agree there's some lock-in but I don't see any other reasonable option for a company to generate revenue without any vendor lock-in