6 ms·
What's the point of AGPL though? The enterprises with the budget for self hosting this sort of software usually have requirements and scale beyond what SQLite c
by Onavo 2y ago
What's the point of AGPL though? The enterprises with the budget for self hosting this sort of software usually have requirements and scale beyond what SQLite can offer out of the box.
- jerrygenser 2y agoHe's going to make backends pluggable. So other more scalable backends than sqlite could work
- memset 2y agoIn practice, I don’t plan on adding an entire proprietary layer - that is just way too much work, and it defeats the purpose. If the open source code has bad performance, why would someone even bother with a hosted version? Like, I want people to be so impressed by the open source code that they’d trust a cloud version to be even better. Clickhouse and duckdb do this very well. The main difference I expect with a hosted solution are things like multiple tenants or billing integrations. These aren’t core to the product and only necessary when you need to host someone else’s data.
- andrewstuart 2y agoUgh I didn't see that. My enthusiasm has instantly waned. Why is AGPL needed? Just be MIT and make it easy for people, espefcially if you're not planning on monetising it. I won't use AGPL code just on principle.
- ctippett 2y agoWhy? Does AGPL really matter if you're not planning on monetising whatever it is you're using it for? Not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious why you'd be so vehemently opposed to it.
- Aeolun 2y agoI think the crux of the argument is that if you are not planning to monetize it, why stop other people from doing so?
- andrewstuart 2y agoAlso, is there really any money left in message queues? Every man and his dog has made a message queue with Postgres. Message queues are everywhere on github and often posted on HN.
- meiraleal 2y agoAGPL don't stop nobody from monetizing anything, they just gotta make their modifications public.
- pc86 2y agoIf you're anywhere close to a technical or developer space it's pretty clear how making your entire codebase public could negatively impact a monetization strategy. So yeah you're right that AGPL doesn't explicitly prevent monetization (other than "pay us for the source code" stuff of course) but in practice nobody with a serious monetization strategy is going to be releasing all their code AGPL either.
- meiraleal 2y ago> but in practice nobody with a serious monetization strategy is going to be releasing all their code AGPL Which fulfills the developer will of attracting higher quality users that plan to collaborate with him. You got it right :) You got something wrong tho, If you're anywhere close to a free software/open source space, you should know that using his AGPL SQS replacement, the only thing that would need to be public is whatever you change in it, not the things you use it.
- ahachete 2y agoAGPL is the best OSS license to ensure project continuity as Open Source. That simple. Permissive licenses allow for proprietary forks, which may become more successful than the upstream project. AGPL would be able to benefit from any improvements from any fork, and all those will remain OSS for everyone. Nothing written here is related in any way to monetization.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoNot gonna lie, man - this is just as obnoxious as when GPL zealots shit on someone's permissively licensed project because they think it should be GPL. The man has a right to use whatever license he wants.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- lupusreal 2y agoProvoking this sort of response is the best feature of the AGPL. I love it.