3 ms·

Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source". "CockroachDB will remain source available under a new

Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source". "CockroachDB will remain source available under a new license" sounds correct but it's still sidestepping the question. And "the source code will still be available for viewing and contributions" is completely shit. Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Also, the use of this kind of "evolving our" and "advancing our" phrasing is so incredibly gross. No one speaks like this except in corporate announcements.

dymk 2y ago
> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they get to use it for free?
dastbe 2y ago
> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they'd be getting paid to do it for their company? I know of a few customers who, if they could, would have their employees contribute minor features to AWS services to solve issues.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ezekg 2y ago
> Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source". CockroachDB hasn't been open source for over 5 years: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr...
- scblock 2y ago
  Yet it's one of the top questions on their announcement page and they won't clearly answer it.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    Likely because most people think "source available on GitHub" = "open source", so they're just answering the low-hanging-fruit even if the question is technically incorrect. They don't claim to be open source anywhere, and I haven't seen them claiming to be open source since they relicensed to the BUSL over 5 years ago. I don't think there's malice here.
ted_dunning 2y ago
> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they need a bug fix in the code as soon as possible without waiting for the vendor's priorities to match their own?

dymk 2y ago

> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they get to use it for free?

dastbe 2y ago

> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they'd be getting paid to do it for their company? I know of a few customers who, if they could, would have their employees contribute minor features to AWS services to solve issues.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ezekg 2y ago

> Dancing around the "so it's not open source" by not clearly saying "correct, it's no longer open source". CockroachDB hasn't been open source for over 5 years: https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190604173131/https://www.cockr...

scblock 2y ago
Yet it's one of the top questions on their announcement page and they won't clearly answer it.
- ezekg 2y ago
  Likely because most people think "source available on GitHub" = "open source", so they're just answering the low-hanging-fruit even if the question is technically incorrect. They don't claim to be open source anywhere, and I haven't seen them claiming to be open source since they relicensed to the BUSL over 5 years ago. I don't think there's malice here.

ted_dunning 2y ago

> Why would anyone contribute to a commercial product unless they're getting paid to do so. Because they need a bug fix in the code as soon as possible without waiting for the vendor's priorities to match their own?