5 ms·

They say it's under the Apache 2 licence, so it is open source. EDIT: I was wrong. They actually released binaries under the Apache licence, not the source cod

They say it's under the Apache 2 licence, so it is open source. EDIT: I was wrong. They actually released binaries under the Apache licence, not the source code. Which is, mildly said, deceptive. I don't even have an idea what that actually means.

martypitt 4y ago
They say the binaries are being made under Apache 2. They don't say anything about the source code being published. That's why (to me) this is so interesting. I've never seen binaries released without source code before.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  We used to call it Public Domain and Shareware (with variations like Coffeeware, Beerware, Postware,...)
- stefan_ 4y ago
  What is even the point of releasing binaries under Apache 2? When I patch the binaries, do I need to release a hexdiff too to fulfill my Apache obligations? Very weird.
  - politician 4y ago
    I suppose you could run it through a Java decompiler and clean up the results with an LLM. How long would that take? 5 years to make it useful?
- vore 4y ago
  I wonder if they took a page out of Fabrice Bellard's book: https://bellard.org/ts_server/ https://bellard.org/ts_server/ The CPU version is released as binary code under the MIT license.
a2800276 4y ago
They licensed the binary under Apache. It's a publicity stunt.
- lolinder 4y ago
  Making your product available for free isn't a publicity stunt, it's a huge step for a business. And, in practice, it's not that much different for the average user if only the binaries are Apache licensed. When was the last time you needed to open up the Postgres source code and modify something?
  - a2800276 4y ago
    If it wasn't a publicity stunt, it certainly had the effects of one: I've never heard of Datomic before and here they are at the top of hackernews! > And, in practice, it's not that much different for the average user if only the binaries are Apache licensed. When was the last time you needed to open up the Postgres source code and modify something? Sure, if you're playing a game it probably doesn't make a difference. If I'm building my IT infrastructure on a product, tt makes a huge difference if I get a an open-source-licensed "binary" or access the to source: - the package they distribute contains no less than 960 different jars. Most of those are the standard apache-project-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-style dependencies. Say I'd like to update log4j because it contains a catastropic vulnerability that datomic decide not to fix. (not that that sort of thing ever happens) - or say Datomic decides to abandon the product altogether or goes out of business - or say I'm not happy with their quality of service contract around their DB they support and would like to work with a different company
    - lolinder 4y ago
      Again, with your hypotheticals—when was the last time you needed to do any of that with Postgres or another FOSS DBMS? For the vast majority of use cases, a FOSS DBMS and a free-as-in-beer DBMS are indistinguishable. If you're in a category where they're not, then don't use Datomic, but this is still far more than a publicity stunt.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

martypitt 4y ago

They say the binaries are being made under Apache 2. They don't say anything about the source code being published. That's why (to me) this is so interesting. I've never seen binaries released without source code before.

pjmlp 4y ago
We used to call it Public Domain and Shareware (with variations like Coffeeware, Beerware, Postware,...)
stefan_ 4y ago
What is even the point of releasing binaries under Apache 2? When I patch the binaries, do I need to release a hexdiff too to fulfill my Apache obligations? Very weird.
- politician 4y ago
  I suppose you could run it through a Java decompiler and clean up the results with an LLM. How long would that take? 5 years to make it useful?
vore 4y ago
I wonder if they took a page out of Fabrice Bellard's book: https://bellard.org/ts_server/ https://bellard.org/ts_server/ The CPU version is released as binary code under the MIT license.

a2800276 4y ago

They licensed the binary under Apache. It's a publicity stunt.

lolinder 4y ago
Making your product available for free isn't a publicity stunt, it's a huge step for a business. And, in practice, it's not that much different for the average user if only the binaries are Apache licensed. When was the last time you needed to open up the Postgres source code and modify something?
- a2800276 4y ago
  If it wasn't a publicity stunt, it certainly had the effects of one: I've never heard of Datomic before and here they are at the top of hackernews! > And, in practice, it's not that much different for the average user if only the binaries are Apache licensed. When was the last time you needed to open up the Postgres source code and modify something? Sure, if you're playing a game it probably doesn't make a difference. If I'm building my IT infrastructure on a product, tt makes a huge difference if I get a an open-source-licensed "binary" or access the to source: - the package they distribute contains no less than 960 different jars. Most of those are the standard apache-project-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-style dependencies. Say I'd like to update log4j because it contains a catastropic vulnerability that datomic decide not to fix. (not that that sort of thing ever happens) - or say Datomic decides to abandon the product altogether or goes out of business - or say I'm not happy with their quality of service contract around their DB they support and would like to work with a different company
  - lolinder 4y ago
    Again, with your hypotheticals—when was the last time you needed to do any of that with Postgres or another FOSS DBMS? For the vast majority of use cases, a FOSS DBMS and a free-as-in-beer DBMS are indistinguishable. If you're in a category where they're not, then don't use Datomic, but this is still far more than a publicity stunt.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]