4 ms·

Are they linked in any way with DragonflyBSD ?

fweimer 3y ago
Unlikely, it's not even open source: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
- Buttons840 3y ago
  I've never seen this license. It looks like it will be open source under the Apache license after 5 years though. That is, I can save the code now, and in 5 years I can do whatever I want with it (under the Apache license terms). When open-source isn't an option, then this is the next best thing.
  - solarkraft 3y ago
    Huh, interesting concept. It's definitely a big step above "source available". It even kind of allows maintaining a community version with outside patches, albeit slowly. It kind of rivals the KDE/Qt deal of "freely licensed when the company goes under" in its effects of the code eventually being community-maintainable once the company doesn't care for it anymore. 5 years is a bit much though.
- rollcat 3y ago
  It is open source, you can browse the source all you like. It's not free software. BSL-style licenses seem to be a popular choice for databases, thanks to AWS.
  - erk__ 3y ago
    Well "source available" would probably be better. It is not open source by the definitions most follow in this case the OSI definition. Eg it goes against §6 of their definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
  - Un1corn 3y ago
    Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. While sadly Open Source Initiative were not able to get the trademark for open source, the de-facto definition of open source is practically the same as free software. Dragonfly is source available which is a completely different thing.
    - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
      That's just like, your opinion, man. I think the parallels to free software are markedly correct. They're just words after all. It will forever be used in ways incompatible with the OSI definition, showing up after every misuse to correct folks isn't helpful. You meant free as in beer, right?
    - rollcat 3y ago
      > Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. Don't blame it on me, that ship has sailed over two decades ago. That's why RMS didn't like the term in the first place. Even if I disagree with RMS on most things, I have to admit I'm 100% with him on this one. It's almost as if the term was coined to create this kind of confusion. In my opinion, the mental gymnastics around the definition of "open source" led to abominations like CDDL, which was carefully and explicitly designed to make it impossible/impractical/illegal to properly integrate ZFS or DTrace with Linux. CDDL is perfectly "open source" by definition, but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. In all this mess, I actually think BSL is cool. It's a legally binding vow to actually make a particular release free (as in freedom) down the line. They could have kept it proprietary (which I think is totally fair), or made vague promises instead.
      - jen20 3y ago
        > but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. And yet here we are, with DTrace (CDDL) shipping in macOS, ZFS having shipped in OS X for several releases, and FreeBSD shipping both. Even Windows (on the "insider" builds) has DTrace [1] _shipped by Microsoft_. That makes any argument that you can't use any of this stuff unless using Solaris looking rather... wrong - and the idea that Sun lawyers would have overlooked FreeBSD, macOS or Windows if the goal were to restrict the software to be used in Solaris is laughable. In the case of CDDL specifically, even RMS [2] refers to it as a "free software license", though not one which is GPL-compatible. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/dtrace https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/d... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL

Unlikely, it's not even open source: https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/dragonflydb/dragonfly/blob/main/LICENSE.m...

Buttons840 3y ago
I've never seen this license. It looks like it will be open source under the Apache license after 5 years though. That is, I can save the code now, and in 5 years I can do whatever I want with it (under the Apache license terms). When open-source isn't an option, then this is the next best thing.
- solarkraft 3y ago
  Huh, interesting concept. It's definitely a big step above "source available". It even kind of allows maintaining a community version with outside patches, albeit slowly. It kind of rivals the KDE/Qt deal of "freely licensed when the company goes under" in its effects of the code eventually being community-maintainable once the company doesn't care for it anymore. 5 years is a bit much though.
rollcat 3y ago
It is open source, you can browse the source all you like. It's not free software. BSL-style licenses seem to be a popular choice for databases, thanks to AWS.
- erk__ 3y ago
  Well "source available" would probably be better. It is not open source by the definitions most follow in this case the OSI definition. Eg it goes against §6 of their definition. https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- Un1corn 3y ago
  Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. While sadly Open Source Initiative were not able to get the trademark for open source, the de-facto definition of open source is practically the same as free software. Dragonfly is source available which is a completely different thing.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    That's just like, your opinion, man. I think the parallels to free software are markedly correct. They're just words after all. It will forever be used in ways incompatible with the OSI definition, showing up after every misuse to correct folks isn't helpful. You meant free as in beer, right?
  - rollcat 3y ago
    > Please don't try to delude people by changing the definition of open source. Don't blame it on me, that ship has sailed over two decades ago. That's why RMS didn't like the term in the first place. Even if I disagree with RMS on most things, I have to admit I'm 100% with him on this one. It's almost as if the term was coined to create this kind of confusion. In my opinion, the mental gymnastics around the definition of "open source" led to abominations like CDDL, which was carefully and explicitly designed to make it impossible/impractical/illegal to properly integrate ZFS or DTrace with Linux. CDDL is perfectly "open source" by definition, but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. In all this mess, I actually think BSL is cool. It's a legally binding vow to actually make a particular release free (as in freedom) down the line. They could have kept it proprietary (which I think is totally fair), or made vague promises instead.
    - jen20 3y ago
      > but its primary purpose was to lock people out of actually using software licensed under it, unless they happen to be running Solaris. And yet here we are, with DTrace (CDDL) shipping in macOS, ZFS having shipped in OS X for several releases, and FreeBSD shipping both. Even Windows (on the "insider" builds) has DTrace [1] _shipped by Microsoft_. That makes any argument that you can't use any of this stuff unless using Solaris looking rather... wrong - and the idea that Sun lawyers would have overlooked FreeBSD, macOS or Windows if the goal were to restrict the software to be used in Solaris is laughable. In the case of CDDL specifically, even RMS [2] refers to it as a "free software license", though not one which is GPL-compatible. [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/devtest/dtrace https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/d... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CDDL