3 ms·

Google will never touch Citus because it is AGPL licensed[0], I wouldn't be surprised if the other cloud providers have similar policies. [0] https://opensourc

Google will never touch Citus because it is AGPL licensed[0], I wouldn't be surprised if the other cloud providers have similar policies. [0] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

benglish11 3y ago
Citus is owned by Microsoft as well. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2019/01/24/microsoft-acquires-citus-data-re-affirming-its-commitment-to-open-source-and-accelerating-azure-postgresql-performance-and-scale/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2019/01/24/microsoft-acquir...
- I_am_tiberius 3y ago
  Yes, the company, but the plugin is some sort of open source.
  - znpy 3y ago
    Open source stuff are still subject to ownership via copyright. The license allows you to do many things, but not everything. The copyright owner on the other had, can do everything. That’s why many projects nowadays require you to assign copyright to the team before accepting a contribution.
chungy 3y ago
I personally don't consider the AGPL to be a free software nor open source license. The burden it places on operating and using the software sufficiently violates freedom 0 in my view.
- wwtrv 3y ago
  Yes infringing on the inherent freedom of corporations to maximize their profit margins is pretty awful
- 411111111111111 3y ago
  > define open source denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. > agpl limitations The AGPL License does not permit sublicensing of the code; that is, you cannot rework or add to the code and then close those changes off to the public. considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb. There is nothing hard about forking the repository and then creating a readonly mirror of your working copy on a public github repo.
  - chungy 3y ago
    > > define open source > denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. Being honest, I didn't examine the OSD closely when writing the comment, but I still feel AGPL might violate rule #10 for the open source criterion.[0] However, it's much more clear cut going over to the free software side.[1] Specifically, the explanatory text in the free software philosophy states: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity." The AGPL requires that you communicate your use of the software, and further forces you to provide access to the source code. For unmodified copies, it might be sufficient to link back to an upstream project. As soon as you modify even a single line, you must now provide your own fork, which will involve setting up some sort of infrastructure. That's assuming that the source code still exists (you might be surprised how often it's lost). > considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb. 100% disagree :) [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

benglish11 3y ago

Citus is owned by Microsoft as well. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2019/01/24/microsoft-acquires-citus-data-re-affirming-its-commitment-to-open-source-and-accelerating-azure-postgresql-performance-and-scale/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2019/01/24/microsoft-acquir...

I_am_tiberius 3y ago
Yes, the company, but the plugin is some sort of open source.
- znpy 3y ago
  Open source stuff are still subject to ownership via copyright. The license allows you to do many things, but not everything. The copyright owner on the other had, can do everything. That’s why many projects nowadays require you to assign copyright to the team before accepting a contribution.

chungy 3y ago

I personally don't consider the AGPL to be a free software nor open source license. The burden it places on operating and using the software sufficiently violates freedom 0 in my view.

wwtrv 3y ago
Yes infringing on the inherent freedom of corporations to maximize their profit margins is pretty awful
411111111111111 3y ago
> define open source denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. > agpl limitations The AGPL License does not permit sublicensing of the code; that is, you cannot rework or add to the code and then close those changes off to the public. considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb. There is nothing hard about forking the repository and then creating a readonly mirror of your working copy on a public github repo.
- chungy 3y ago
  > > define open source > denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. Being honest, I didn't examine the OSD closely when writing the comment, but I still feel AGPL might violate rule #10 for the open source criterion.[0] However, it's much more clear cut going over to the free software side.[1] Specifically, the explanatory text in the free software philosophy states: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity." The AGPL requires that you communicate your use of the software, and further forces you to provide access to the source code. For unmodified copies, it might be sufficient to link back to an upstream project. As soon as you modify even a single line, you must now provide your own fork, which will involve setting up some sort of infrastructure. That's assuming that the source code still exists (you might be surprised how often it's lost). > considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb. 100% disagree :) [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html