8 ms·

Thanks for your work. Curious: Why BSL? Why not open core [0] (or xGPLv3) like what most other commercial OSS projects seem to be doing? [0] https://archive.i

Thanks for your work. Curious: Why BSL? Why not open core [0] (or xGPLv3) like what most other commercial OSS projects seem to be doing? [0] https://archive.is/nT9DF#selection-410.0-410.1 https://archive.is/nT9DF#selection-410.0-410.1

OPoncz 4y ago
GPL is copyleft and more restrictive in some elements. BSL 1.1 is actually quite popular nowdays.
felixg3 4y ago
They probably don't want to end up being replaced by an AWS/GCP/Azure service. In my opinion, the BSL is a fair license model, especially if it is limited in duration (let's say 2-3 years BSL then automatically changing to Apache/BSD).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  A duration limit in the license, after which it becomes a permissive license, seems the critical point. Accomplishes the goal of preventing a cloud provider from stealing customers, but also ensures customers don't get caught in an "always tomorrow" trap when the deadline comes and the company realizes it only hurts them to fully share it. Seems to align all interests pretty nicely. (I'm as big of an OSS supporter as anyone, but we can't pretend we still live in a time where Google / Amazon / modern-Microsoft don't exist)
  - romange 4y ago
    Exactly. Finding the right balance is the right thing to do. I am not angry at cloud providers , but i am angry at OSI and their blind idealism that leaves us out there alone. I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community.
    - ignoramous 4y ago
      > I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community. F/OSS means a very specific thing. If one can't possibly build a rocketship business, that isn't F/OSS fault. Of course, you've got an alt-movement in response to OSI and FSF's rigid adherence to its principles, speared on by tech companies who (think they) got burnt by other tech companies. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        I think romange put it well: balance. There's a lot of room between {completely F/OSS, that a cloud provider can implement and bankrupt the company supporting project development} and {completely evil closed source company like Oracle}. In the end, we all want good software, with the maximum amount of permissions and source, free. It's just a question of tweaking the support model to get there. IMHO, the "Don't call yourself OSS if you're not 100% OSI OSS" is counter-productive. But I understand why they do it, and I understand the history and abuses that caused them to do it. I'd just say if we no-true-Scotsman our approach in a way that precludes profitable, sustainable OSS companies... we're going to have less quality OSS. :(
- Aeolun 4y ago
  But my entire stack is already in AWS. One service provider deciding they don’t want AWS making a service out of it just means I have to make the effort of self-hosting it, not that I’ll suddenly end up using their service (which is outside my VPC).
  - isignal 4y ago
    can you clarify why you feel this way, plenty of companies use confluente Kafka or mongodb with VPC peering? Would AWS private link make you feel better about network security?
oofbey 4y ago
This looks quite cool from a technical perspective, but the unusual license definitely gives me pause. Largely because I'm not familiar with BSL. Others say it's increasingly popular, but with a little googling the acronym is still somewhat ambiguous - opensource.org lists BSL as the "Boost Software License" which looks more like BSD. This kind of confusion doesn't support the idea that this is a solid trustworthy OSS license. Still, I really appreciate that you didn't choose a copy-left license. On the license front, what is the "change license" clause listed? It says something about changing in 5 years. Does this mean it will become Apache licensed in 2027? Why would you put that in there?
- romange 4y ago
  It's exactly that. It gives us a little chance to fight against the Giants. In 5 years the initial version becomes Apache 2.0 then the next version and so on and so forth. CockroachDB uses similar license. MariaDB uses that, Redpanda Data and others. You are right that acronym is confusing - it's not Boost license, it's Business License. Every major technological startup turned away from BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses due to inability to compete with cloud providers without technological edge.
  - JoshTriplett 4y ago
    I certainly don't think you should pick a permissive license, and find yourself under competition from companies running your own software. However, I'm sad that instead of going with an Open Source license that protects against that, you're using a proprietary license. That alone is a nonstarter for many users, not because they want to compete with you but because they want to protect themselves and make sure they have a firm foundation to build on. Much of the software you're citing as examples moved from Open Source to proprietary, harming their users in the process, and causing many users to seek alternatives.
    - jitl 4y ago
      Do you think AGPL offers such protection? I think even AGPL is fine for Amazon et al, they are happy to dump the code somewhere while selling a managed service with enough wrapper layers. But AGPL is toxic also for self-hosters who aren’t trying to build a managed hosting service, since it applies equally against all parties.
sideeffffect 4y ago
This BSL Business Source License is endorsed by neither the Free Software Foundation nor OSI https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical That's a big red flag.
- spiffytech 4y ago
  I'll be interested to see where the community lands on this years from now. It's frustrating to see so many databases relicense under licenses that are almost OSS but not quite. Yet it's totally understandable - it's hard to pay database engineers when you give your product away and then AWS neuters your hosting and support business.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    I just wish more developers could follow Grafana's path and switch to the AGPL when that becomes a problem, instead of switching to fauxpen source licenses.
    - romange 4y ago
      I think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken...
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        The innovation should take place within the FOSS space, though.
        true_religion 4y ago
        Why? FOSS is, at least initially, a charitable project. You work on a database for months then give it in its entirety away for free to all your potential customers and even your competitors with better established sales teams (e.g. Amazon). They are explicitly not a charity. Isn’t it okay to be a for profit company that sells software with a closed copyrighted source?

OPoncz 4y ago

GPL is copyleft and more restrictive in some elements. BSL 1.1 is actually quite popular nowdays.

felixg3 4y ago

They probably don't want to end up being replaced by an AWS/GCP/Azure service. In my opinion, the BSL is a fair license model, especially if it is limited in duration (let's say 2-3 years BSL then automatically changing to Apache/BSD).

ethbr0 4y ago
A duration limit in the license, after which it becomes a permissive license, seems the critical point. Accomplishes the goal of preventing a cloud provider from stealing customers, but also ensures customers don't get caught in an "always tomorrow" trap when the deadline comes and the company realizes it only hurts them to fully share it. Seems to align all interests pretty nicely. (I'm as big of an OSS supporter as anyone, but we can't pretend we still live in a time where Google / Amazon / modern-Microsoft don't exist)
- romange 4y ago
  Exactly. Finding the right balance is the right thing to do. I am not angry at cloud providers , but i am angry at OSI and their blind idealism that leaves us out there alone. I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community.
  - ignoramous 4y ago
    > I think that not solving the problem by them, hurt first of all the oss community. F/OSS means a very specific thing. If one can't possibly build a rocketship business, that isn't F/OSS fault. Of course, you've got an alt-movement in response to OSI and FSF's rigid adherence to its principles, speared on by tech companies who (think they) got burnt by other tech companies. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25896162
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      I think romange put it well: balance. There's a lot of room between {completely F/OSS, that a cloud provider can implement and bankrupt the company supporting project development} and {completely evil closed source company like Oracle}. In the end, we all want good software, with the maximum amount of permissions and source, free. It's just a question of tweaking the support model to get there. IMHO, the "Don't call yourself OSS if you're not 100% OSI OSS" is counter-productive. But I understand why they do it, and I understand the history and abuses that caused them to do it. I'd just say if we no-true-Scotsman our approach in a way that precludes profitable, sustainable OSS companies... we're going to have less quality OSS. :(
Aeolun 4y ago
But my entire stack is already in AWS. One service provider deciding they don’t want AWS making a service out of it just means I have to make the effort of self-hosting it, not that I’ll suddenly end up using their service (which is outside my VPC).
- isignal 4y ago
  can you clarify why you feel this way, plenty of companies use confluente Kafka or mongodb with VPC peering? Would AWS private link make you feel better about network security?

oofbey 4y ago

This looks quite cool from a technical perspective, but the unusual license definitely gives me pause. Largely because I'm not familiar with BSL. Others say it's increasingly popular, but with a little googling the acronym is still somewhat ambiguous - opensource.org lists BSL as the "Boost Software License" which looks more like BSD. This kind of confusion doesn't support the idea that this is a solid trustworthy OSS license. Still, I really appreciate that you didn't choose a copy-left license. On the license front, what is the "change license" clause listed? It says something about changing in 5 years. Does this mean it will become Apache licensed in 2027? Why would you put that in there?

romange 4y ago
It's exactly that. It gives us a little chance to fight against the Giants. In 5 years the initial version becomes Apache 2.0 then the next version and so on and so forth. CockroachDB uses similar license. MariaDB uses that, Redpanda Data and others. You are right that acronym is confusing - it's not Boost license, it's Business License. Every major technological startup turned away from BSD/Apache 2.0 licenses due to inability to compete with cloud providers without technological edge.
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  I certainly don't think you should pick a permissive license, and find yourself under competition from companies running your own software. However, I'm sad that instead of going with an Open Source license that protects against that, you're using a proprietary license. That alone is a nonstarter for many users, not because they want to compete with you but because they want to protect themselves and make sure they have a firm foundation to build on. Much of the software you're citing as examples moved from Open Source to proprietary, harming their users in the process, and causing many users to seek alternatives.
  - jitl 4y ago
    Do you think AGPL offers such protection? I think even AGPL is fine for Amazon et al, they are happy to dump the code somewhere while selling a managed service with enough wrapper layers. But AGPL is toxic also for self-hosters who aren’t trying to build a managed hosting service, since it applies equally against all parties.

sideeffffect 4y ago

This BSL Business Source License is endorsed by neither the Free Software Foundation nor OSI https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical That's a big red flag.

spiffytech 4y ago
I'll be interested to see where the community lands on this years from now. It's frustrating to see so many databases relicense under licenses that are almost OSS but not quite. Yet it's totally understandable - it's hard to pay database engineers when you give your product away and then AWS neuters your hosting and support business.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  I just wish more developers could follow Grafana's path and switch to the AGPL when that becomes a problem, instead of switching to fauxpen source licenses.
  - romange 4y ago
    I think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken...
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      The innovation should take place within the FOSS space, though.
      - true_religion 4y ago
        Why? FOSS is, at least initially, a charitable project. You work on a database for months then give it in its entirety away for free to all your potential customers and even your competitors with better established sales teams (e.g. Amazon). They are explicitly not a charity. Isn’t it okay to be a for profit company that sells software with a closed copyrighted source?