4 ms·

Free for non-production use... it's a "no" for me.

by redleader55 4y ago

williamstein 4y ago
Woah - also, their license automatically becomes open source (Apache) three years from now.
- kevincox 4y ago
  The problem with these is always security updates. If you want to run on the old stuff you have to make your own security patches. Of course maybe that is exactly something that it makes sense to pay for.
blahgeek 4y ago
It's also confusing... I mean, what does "non-production use" mean anyway? Does it mean "non-commercial use"? Or "testing/debug/staging environment"? Or "does not produce any valuable output"...?
- worldsavior 4y ago
  It means if a company uses this program, they can't use it without paying the developer.
  - georgyo 4y ago
    But companies can still experiment with it without paying. IE, you can integrate it and run benchmarks to see if it would actually help your pain points.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It means if a company ”company” is not a particularly well-defined term.
- williamstein 4y ago
  According to this article https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ about the Business Source License, the intention conveyed by the word "production" for that license is use "in any capacity that is meant to make money".
  - williamstein 4y ago
    What I want to know is: "can I add Codon to a site like https://cocalc.com https://cocalc.com that I host as long as users of Codon explicitly agree to only use it in a way that is compatible with the license?" I have absolutely no idea if that would be allowed by the rules or not.
    - unsafecast 4y ago
      I think that's supposed to apply to you, not your users. My understanding is that you pay if you make money using it. I can definitely see how you can easily interpret it in many other ways though.
  - dmos62 4y ago
    > "in any capacity that is meant to make money" I'll note that that's the definition of "commercial".
ThinkBeat 4y ago
I have not dug into the project yet, but if it delivers on the features it mentions it should be a game changer for a lot of companies, heavily invested in Python. Paying to use it seems fair.
- acedTrex 4y ago
  numba is already a thing though
sillysaurusx 4y ago
Surprised this sentiment is so common. It's like, do you want open source devs to work for free forever? Even Redis had to pivot to a business license. I'm not sure what the terms are in this particular case, but in general, wanting someone to pay if they're deploying it to lots of customers seems reasonable.
- nu11ptr 4y ago
  I understand both perspectives. On the one hand, in the same way any sort of fee (even $1) is a big impediment to adoption over free, so is the idea that "if I try this out and like it, I'll now be stuck with whatever costs they stick me with now and in the future". In a fast moving world, open source is just easier because if you change your mind, you haven't wasted money. In addition, there are only so many costs a project can afford and it is hard to know as it progresses where those will popup, so you avoid when you can. That said, developers need to eat, and it is easy to appreciate the fact that they are letting you see the source, play with it, but pay if you want to use. I also fully support their right to license their software as they see fit.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  A lot of developers don't have/control budgets and might not have the clout required to get a tool like this approved. I agree that the devs of these tools need to be paid, but that particular avenue presents some roadblocks.
- lozenge 4y ago
  I can swap one load balancer or cache for another. However, if my programming language has unfavourable terms I will have to rewrite all my code. Oh, and the knowledge I gained will be non transferable to another job or project because it'll always be a niche language. Better to spend the time learning how to get the same performance out of Numba or whatever other alternatives people mentioned here. By the way, Redis is still BSD licensed.
- redleader55 4y ago
  There are a lot of products released under GPL, for example, that make money for their authors. It's just that they don't make money with licensing fees.

Free for non-production use... it's a "no" for me.

williamstein 4y ago

Woah - also, their license automatically becomes open source (Apache) three years from now.

kevincox 4y ago
The problem with these is always security updates. If you want to run on the old stuff you have to make your own security patches. Of course maybe that is exactly something that it makes sense to pay for.

blahgeek 4y ago

It's also confusing... I mean, what does "non-production use" mean anyway? Does it mean "non-commercial use"? Or "testing/debug/staging environment"? Or "does not produce any valuable output"...?

worldsavior 4y ago
It means if a company uses this program, they can't use it without paying the developer.
- georgyo 4y ago
  But companies can still experiment with it without paying. IE, you can integrate it and run benchmarks to see if it would actually help your pain points.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It means if a company ”company” is not a particularly well-defined term.
williamstein 4y ago
According to this article https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ https://perens.com/2017/02/14/bsl-1-1/ about the Business Source License, the intention conveyed by the word "production" for that license is use "in any capacity that is meant to make money".
- williamstein 4y ago
  What I want to know is: "can I add Codon to a site like https://cocalc.com https://cocalc.com that I host as long as users of Codon explicitly agree to only use it in a way that is compatible with the license?" I have absolutely no idea if that would be allowed by the rules or not.
  - unsafecast 4y ago
    I think that's supposed to apply to you, not your users. My understanding is that you pay if you make money using it. I can definitely see how you can easily interpret it in many other ways though.
- dmos62 4y ago
  > "in any capacity that is meant to make money" I'll note that that's the definition of "commercial".

ThinkBeat 4y ago

I have not dug into the project yet, but if it delivers on the features it mentions it should be a game changer for a lot of companies, heavily invested in Python. Paying to use it seems fair.

acedTrex 4y ago
numba is already a thing though

sillysaurusx 4y ago

Surprised this sentiment is so common. It's like, do you want open source devs to work for free forever? Even Redis had to pivot to a business license. I'm not sure what the terms are in this particular case, but in general, wanting someone to pay if they're deploying it to lots of customers seems reasonable.

nu11ptr 4y ago
I understand both perspectives. On the one hand, in the same way any sort of fee (even $1) is a big impediment to adoption over free, so is the idea that "if I try this out and like it, I'll now be stuck with whatever costs they stick me with now and in the future". In a fast moving world, open source is just easier because if you change your mind, you haven't wasted money. In addition, there are only so many costs a project can afford and it is hard to know as it progresses where those will popup, so you avoid when you can. That said, developers need to eat, and it is easy to appreciate the fact that they are letting you see the source, play with it, but pay if you want to use. I also fully support their right to license their software as they see fit.
mywittyname 4y ago
A lot of developers don't have/control budgets and might not have the clout required to get a tool like this approved. I agree that the devs of these tools need to be paid, but that particular avenue presents some roadblocks.
lozenge 4y ago
I can swap one load balancer or cache for another. However, if my programming language has unfavourable terms I will have to rewrite all my code. Oh, and the knowledge I gained will be non transferable to another job or project because it'll always be a niche language. Better to spend the time learning how to get the same performance out of Numba or whatever other alternatives people mentioned here. By the way, Redis is still BSD licensed.
redleader55 4y ago
There are a lot of products released under GPL, for example, that make money for their authors. It's just that they don't make money with licensing fees.