3 ms·
Not OP, but looking at the products GitHub, Prisma uses an Apache license. Regardless, I don’t think whether the ability to clone and own is the issue, rather t
by vegetablepotpie 3y ago
Not OP, but looking at the products GitHub, Prisma uses an Apache license. Regardless, I don’t think whether the ability to clone and own is the issue, rather the question is: do you want to take on the scope of maintaining a library or other piece of software that’s not at the core of your business?
Maybe you’re a developer who can keep account of multiple layers, or all layers in your stack. If so that’s great. But we’re all limited to varying degrees and there’s only so much one can do. Really, you need to find reliable partners who can own some of that complexity for you.
In OPs case, they picked a partner that was not reliable. They paid for it with more maintenance. But this is what you get with open source. You can get it for free and you can set it up fast because you don’t need to negotiate contracts, but your dependencies are under no obligation to support your use cases.
- MiddleEndian 3y agoI guess my interpretation of "A lot of people wanted to sponsor or support ongoing development of prisma 1 until the similar functionalities have been developed on prisma 2." was that they had some sort of team potentially ready to go, but perhaps they were stopped by an "open source" license that wasn't a "free license" or whatever. But yeah I get it, too much of a pain, too unrealistic, etc. Of course, open source software is not the only thing at risk of this, seems like most modern software gives you little control over what version you use.