I posted it on Twitter, but I feel like revenue-based licensing models unnecessarily push the compliance burden onto the user. It's an honor system, and even th

I posted it on Twitter, but I feel like revenue-based licensing models unnecessarily push the compliance burden onto the user. It's an honor system, and even they admit it [0]; even Unity, who also uses a revenue-based model, admits it [1]. I'd prefer licensing models that are able to automatically segment users into customers at the software-level, such as a feature-based or usage-based model. For example, they could segment on CPU count or disk size, requiring an Enterprise offering for databases or clusters over a certain threshold. But completely doing away with Core and requiring license keys even for free users [2] (which I assume is for revenue auditing purposes) ... I feel like that's a big step backwards. All of this because their Enterprise offering seemingly wasn't valuable enough (or from the comments -- it was too expensive). I'd of focused there, on making Enterprise more valuable or more accessible, instead of doing something this drastic. AFAICT, they're also doing away with BUSL and DOSP [3], which is a big bummer. [0]: https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/15/cockroach-labs-shakes-up-its-licensing-to-force-bigger-companies-to-pay/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/15/cockroach-labs-shakes-up-i... [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/82mfwh/how_could_unity_know_how_much_you_earn/dvbc1fz/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/82mfwh/how_could_u... [2]: https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/enterprise-license-announcement/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/enterprise-license-announ... [3]: https://opensource.org/dosp https://opensource.org/dosp