4 ms·
> for the first time, we are making the control plane for a managed PostgreSQL solution open, using the Elastic v2 license for it. Interesting play on words to
by hnarn 3y ago
> for the first time, we are making the control plane for a managed PostgreSQL solution open, using the Elastic v2 license for it.
Interesting play on words to only call this “open”, heavily implying that it’s open source (by pointing at “closed source” competition) when in fact Elastic v2 is not open source. Hard pass.
- ko_pivot 3y agoI get the frustration with the clever word play, but given the ungodly size of the major cloud providers, licenses like this are necessary for any business offering a hosted version of an open (source) project. I’d rather see the COSS business model succeed with non OSI approved licenses than be replaced by black box cloud-only services.
- hnarn 3y ago> licenses like this are necessary for any business offering a hosted version That’s the argument you hear every time there’s a re-license of what used to be “open source software”, and it may very well be true, but I don’t really care. I care about open source software and I’d rather see half-baked tools that are open source than shiny, fully featured tools that restrict the users and use the “open” terminology to gain traction only as long as it suits their own interests.
- ozgune 3y agoHi there, I'm one of Ubicloud's founders. I agree with you on the sentiment about starting with a liberal license and then re-licensing once you gain enough adoption. We think it's only fair to our users that any re-licensing should go in the other direction. I also had a clarification question, just to better understand. Which part of the Elastic V2 license do you find the most restrictive? (PS: We don't have license keys in Ubicloud. So, only directly competing against our managed service should apply.)