3 ms·

> The thing is, this kind of license is only really relevant to the kinds of projects that do have legal teams So you want to advocate that every future databa

> The thing is, this kind of license is only really relevant to the kinds of projects that do have legal teams So you want to advocate that every future database / infrastructure company needs to burn part of their runway to hire lawyers to do the repetitive work of making sure they can both try to be open and try to continue to exist? Plus we, the users, get to try to decode reams of legalese instead of using a convenient three-letter handle for an industry standard, like GPL or MIT? This does not seem ideal..

lolinder 3y ago
Please read to the end: > Maybe we should instead acknowledge that "managed-hosting-supported FOSS database" is an impossible business model and try something different next time. The business model these companies chose was fundamentally broken. It's only fundamentally broken for a specific class of backend tooling. I believe that future database/infrastructure projects should continue to use the FOSS licenses we all know and love and find a sustainability model that works without compromising the freedoms that make free software free. Postgres, Linux, SQLite, the BSDs, and many other projects in similar spaces have led the way.