13 ms·

I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" sales

I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, "contact us" salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor. The Core offering made this palatable, one could fallback to Core features if the relationship with Cockroach Labs degraded, which made it possible to entertain the Enterprise license since there's was a way to walk back from it. But now there's no such mitigation available. By using non-PG native features, users of the Enterprise edition are accepting to get in bed with Cockroach Labs for effectively forever (databases), a single provider that has no competition. I think this may backfire, as it now seems imprudent to go all in on Cockroach Labs. They may be nice folks today, but who knows who will run the place in 5y when the next round of squeeze comes? I wish them the best, they're a great team and I always liked the project and toyed with it for years, and currently am involved with a paid Enterprise license. But this change in the dynamics is really giving me pause. Getting in bed with a single vendor for an incredibly sticky tool comes with a _lot_ of risk. It took at least 17y for Amazon to get rid of its last Oracle database: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/migration-complete-amazons-consumer-business-just-turned-off-its-final-oracle-database/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/migration-complete-amazons-...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ROFISH 2y ago
Agreed. I talked with them in the past and the pricing was far too expensive to make it worth it. As always: “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”
- immibis 2y ago
  Sometimes quotes are affordable for small businesses - no harm in asking.
candiddevmike 2y ago
There is no abuse here. They released software under a specific license (BSL at that, plenty of opportunities to restrict).
- AYBABTME 2y ago
  It can be construed as "abuse" if another commercial entity is deriving value from the core license while Cockroach Labs doesn't get to enjoy a "fair" share of this created value, while pouring its own resources into a product that enables this value creation. I think CR Labs needs to make money from their activities. However they do it, should be in a way that incentivizes a win-win for them and their customers. Right now I think they attempted to "correct" for the uncaptured value, but the game theory switched toward discouraging adoption (in my perspective). I may be wrong, probably am.
andrewmutz 2y ago
It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  Like other folks have said, anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA.
  - _benedict 2y ago
    The ASF requires a CLA for all regular contributors or large contributions, so I don’t think this is a particularly good barometer.
    - remram 2y ago
      That's a good point. The ASF's FAQ [1] states that "All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge" and that it "is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation [2]", however I see no such specification in the linked incorporation. Is there some actual legal guarantee there? [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html
      - fweimer 2y ago
        I think it's mentioned in this document: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html
jzb 2y ago
This is one of the reasons people should hold the line for open source licensing for any infrastructure software: Any licensing scheme that forces a relationship with a single entity / doesn't allow for forking is open to abuse of users and customers at some point.
JohnDeHope 2y ago
> They may be nice folks today, but who knows who will run the place in 5y when the next round of squeeze comes? The same idea applies to political questions. A politician I like is proposing a policy I approve of. Great! Now what happens in the next election cycle, when a politician I don't like gets to use that same power to do something I don't approve of? Woops.
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  We can vote for different politicians after a few years. The politicians can vote to remove laws that were problems. There’s a straight-forward solution to that. Building critical features on a single, closed-standard database means you can’t leave unless you rewrite all code that relied on it. The new code must integrate in the system well. The change must also happen without taking down the business. For these reasons, politicians and laws change regularly but companies rarely escape database lockin.
zeeg 2y ago
You have nailed their issues - packaging and their revenue model. If you align this well with your target audience the license would have not been a problem for them. Wrote about this a bit here: https://cra.mr/open-source-is-not-a-business-model/ https://cra.mr/open-source-is-not-a-business-model/
wrycoder 2y ago
Well named! It is like a roach motel - once in, you can never leave.
nailer 2y ago
Slightly off-topic but: > a future Oracle/landlord I don't think I've ever heard Oracle's business model described so accurately.
- pas 2y ago
  it's the classic vendor lock-in, it's the feudal serfdom model. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/weva2v/did_peasants_ever_try_to_leave_their_lords_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/weva2v/did_p... we can see that as long as there were "expoitable resources" competition led to "good times". as long as "software lordships" are competing for users, users tend to enjoy "lots of rights".
SoftTalker 2y ago
> the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive Seems to me that it's still free for development, and small business use. If you're over $10M in revenue, with a business or product built on CockroachDB, they want a share of what they made possible. That seems totally reasonable to me.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  You'd be a fool to put all your eggs in this basket: > Annual term. Can be renewed subject to meeting the then-current eligibility requirements
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    OK, use a different database then if you don't like the terms.
    - minerva23 2y ago
      Like the original commenter, everyone at my company really likes all the folks at Cockroach Labs. It's been a pleasure working with them. We're currently in discussion with them to see if we can resolve this licensing change to our satisfaction. If not, we'll do the obvious (use a different database) as you said.
WuxiFingerHold 2y ago
> perceived abuse of the Core edition They don't say that this was the reason for the change. What makes you presume it was "perceived" if they had said it was a reason for the change? I think it's the opposite: Too few used the open core edition, as it is quite limited. They want to increase the overall usage. They want to get growing companies using it. I think it's a fair move: Use it for free as long as you grow. You benefit. When you're large, pay us back. We benefit. > feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor That's about the strongest negative allegation one could come up with. Unobjective content and wording. There're thousands of software vendors or service providers out there (DB and not) that are competitive (they all are) but fair. Every of our much liked startups like Supabase, Neon, Vercel makes the entry very cheap or free and compensates for that with larger fees from the larger customers. There's nothing shady about it. As I said, your post has to much negative bias in content and esp. wording. I don't see that. Factually, there's not risk at all. Every company (see Redis) can change their license of their future work. So you never have any guarantees. With or without a core edition. If you want "true" open source, you can't choose a software developed by a company. The goal of a company is to make money. That should not be surprising.
leeoniya 2y ago
> It took at least 17y for Amazon to get rid of its last Oracle database: this is from CockroachDB license, pretty much straight out of Oracle's playbook: > You will not perform Benchmarks against any products or services provided under terms that restrict performing and disclosing the results of benchmarks of such products or services, unless You have the lawful right to waive such terms. If You perform or disclose, or direct or permit any third party to perform or disclose, any Benchmark, You will include in any disclosure and will disclose to Licensor all information necessary to replicate such Benchmark, and You agree that Licensor may perform and disclose the results of benchmarks of Your products or services, irrespective of any restrictions on benchmarks in the terms governing Your products or services.
- statusgraph 2y ago
  That seems... fine? The terms basically imply that if you publish a benchmark you need to let CRDB reproduce your benchmark and discuss it publicly
wvh 2y ago
Very much this sentiment. While these sort of licenses and business relationships might make sense for high-margin industries that have specific needs, as somebody who has been doing consultancy for the last x years, I tend to advise most companies against the use of software with vendor or data lock-in, and I'm always sad and weary when this happens to interesting long-term projects where such business decisions get made which erode the trust in a healthy future [for smaller companies and more general purposes]. I'm not criticising a company's business decisions here, it might make sense for CockroachDB's business and profit goals; but such decisions also impact the decisions of dependent users, and I've been too long in this to recommend products and services with increasingly restrictive licensing or technical features that create unhealthy dependencies. Since the AWSification of software licenses, I'm seeing more and more projects where a company is trying to get out of product/service X or license Y because they're unhappy or pivoting and the license or tech just doesn't fit the purpose any more, at high cost, occasionally even taking down the company. I guess it's not trivial to balance abusive practices from big players that don't contribute much back with necessary freedom for smaller customers to experiment and freely move between technical solutions.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ROFISH 2y ago

Agreed. I talked with them in the past and the pricing was far too expensive to make it worth it. As always: “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.”

immibis 2y ago
Sometimes quotes are affordable for small businesses - no harm in asking.

candiddevmike 2y ago

There is no abuse here. They released software under a specific license (BSL at that, plenty of opportunities to restrict).

AYBABTME 2y ago
It can be construed as "abuse" if another commercial entity is deriving value from the core license while Cockroach Labs doesn't get to enjoy a "fair" share of this created value, while pouring its own resources into a product that enables this value creation. I think CR Labs needs to make money from their activities. However they do it, should be in a way that incentivizes a win-win for them and their customers. Right now I think they attempted to "correct" for the uncaptured value, but the game theory switched toward discouraging adoption (in my perspective). I may be wrong, probably am.

andrewmutz 2y ago

It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly it seems that "open source" is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled. IMO, it's not really open source if its run by a company that will eventually use its position to squeeze its users for cash.

candiddevmike 2y ago
Like other folks have said, anytime you see a CLA, you see the true intentions of the project. A project that will always be FOSS won't have a need for a CLA.
- _benedict 2y ago
  The ASF requires a CLA for all regular contributors or large contributions, so I don’t think this is a particularly good barometer.
  - remram 2y ago
    That's a good point. The ASF's FAQ [1] states that "All software developed by all projects of The Apache Software Foundation is freely available without charge" and that it "is specified in the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation [2]", however I see no such specification in the linked incorporation. Is there some actual legal guarantee there? [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#IsItFree [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/incorporator.html
    - fweimer 2y ago
      I think it's mentioned in this document: https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/certificate.html

jzb 2y ago

This is one of the reasons people should hold the line for open source licensing for any infrastructure software: Any licensing scheme that forces a relationship with a single entity / doesn't allow for forking is open to abuse of users and customers at some point.

JohnDeHope 2y ago

> They may be nice folks today, but who knows who will run the place in 5y when the next round of squeeze comes? The same idea applies to political questions. A politician I like is proposing a policy I approve of. Great! Now what happens in the next election cycle, when a politician I don't like gets to use that same power to do something I don't approve of? Woops.

nickpsecurity 2y ago
We can vote for different politicians after a few years. The politicians can vote to remove laws that were problems. There’s a straight-forward solution to that. Building critical features on a single, closed-standard database means you can’t leave unless you rewrite all code that relied on it. The new code must integrate in the system well. The change must also happen without taking down the business. For these reasons, politicians and laws change regularly but companies rarely escape database lockin.

zeeg 2y ago

You have nailed their issues - packaging and their revenue model. If you align this well with your target audience the license would have not been a problem for them. Wrote about this a bit here: https://cra.mr/open-source-is-not-a-business-model/ https://cra.mr/open-source-is-not-a-business-model/

wrycoder 2y ago

Well named! It is like a roach motel - once in, you can never leave.

nailer 2y ago

Slightly off-topic but: > a future Oracle/landlord I don't think I've ever heard Oracle's business model described so accurately.

pas 2y ago
it's the classic vendor lock-in, it's the feudal serfdom model. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/weva2v/did_peasants_ever_try_to_leave_their_lords_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/weva2v/did_p... we can see that as long as there were "expoitable resources" competition led to "good times". as long as "software lordships" are competing for users, users tend to enjoy "lots of rights".

SoftTalker 2y ago

> the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive Seems to me that it's still free for development, and small business use. If you're over $10M in revenue, with a business or product built on CockroachDB, they want a share of what they made possible. That seems totally reasonable to me.

yencabulator 2y ago
You'd be a fool to put all your eggs in this basket: > Annual term. Can be renewed subject to meeting the then-current eligibility requirements
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  OK, use a different database then if you don't like the terms.
  - minerva23 2y ago
    Like the original commenter, everyone at my company really likes all the folks at Cockroach Labs. It's been a pleasure working with them. We're currently in discussion with them to see if we can resolve this licensing change to our satisfaction. If not, we'll do the obvious (use a different database) as you said.

WuxiFingerHold 2y ago

> perceived abuse of the Core edition They don't say that this was the reason for the change. What makes you presume it was "perceived" if they had said it was a reason for the change? I think it's the opposite: Too few used the open core edition, as it is quite limited. They want to increase the overall usage. They want to get growing companies using it. I think it's a fair move: Use it for free as long as you grow. You benefit. When you're large, pay us back. We benefit. > feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor That's about the strongest negative allegation one could come up with. Unobjective content and wording. There're thousands of software vendors or service providers out there (DB and not) that are competitive (they all are) but fair. Every of our much liked startups like Supabase, Neon, Vercel makes the entry very cheap or free and compensates for that with larger fees from the larger customers. There's nothing shady about it. As I said, your post has to much negative bias in content and esp. wording. I don't see that. Factually, there's not risk at all. Every company (see Redis) can change their license of their future work. So you never have any guarantees. With or without a core edition. If you want "true" open source, you can't choose a software developed by a company. The goal of a company is to make money. That should not be surprising.

leeoniya 2y ago

> It took at least 17y for Amazon to get rid of its last Oracle database: this is from CockroachDB license, pretty much straight out of Oracle's playbook: > You will not perform Benchmarks against any products or services provided under terms that restrict performing and disclosing the results of benchmarks of such products or services, unless You have the lawful right to waive such terms. If You perform or disclose, or direct or permit any third party to perform or disclose, any Benchmark, You will include in any disclosure and will disclose to Licensor all information necessary to replicate such Benchmark, and You agree that Licensor may perform and disclose the results of benchmarks of Your products or services, irrespective of any restrictions on benchmarks in the terms governing Your products or services.

statusgraph 2y ago
That seems... fine? The terms basically imply that if you publish a benchmark you need to let CRDB reproduce your benchmark and discuss it publicly

wvh 2y ago

Very much this sentiment. While these sort of licenses and business relationships might make sense for high-margin industries that have specific needs, as somebody who has been doing consultancy for the last x years, I tend to advise most companies against the use of software with vendor or data lock-in, and I'm always sad and weary when this happens to interesting long-term projects where such business decisions get made which erode the trust in a healthy future [for smaller companies and more general purposes]. I'm not criticising a company's business decisions here, it might make sense for CockroachDB's business and profit goals; but such decisions also impact the decisions of dependent users, and I've been too long in this to recommend products and services with increasingly restrictive licensing or technical features that create unhealthy dependencies. Since the AWSification of software licenses, I'm seeing more and more projects where a company is trying to get out of product/service X or license Y because they're unhappy or pivoting and the license or tech just doesn't fit the purpose any more, at high cost, occasionally even taking down the company. I guess it's not trivial to balance abusive practices from big players that don't contribute much back with necessary freedom for smaller customers to experiment and freely move between technical solutions.