5 ms·

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 du

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?

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?