5 ms·

ScyllaDB no longer open source

56 points by superq 2y ago

superq 2y ago
> ScyllaDB OSS AGPL 6.2 will stand as the final OSS AGPL release... A free tier of the full-featured ScyllaDB Enterprise will be available. I wonder if this means YDB (from the devs of Clickhouse) will get some traction (https://ydb.tech/ https://ydb.tech/) or if there are other massive scale scylladb-types of DB's out there.
- debarshri 2y ago
  Is ydb same as yugabyte?
  - winrid 2y ago
    It seems like it stands for Yandex DB?
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    You can click the link, but both are attractive; yugabyte and ydb; they are now 'newsql' as people call it I think; sql that scales without the pain (of course there is pain, but other pain). Both have good licenses. Yugabyte is a mixed license, but the apache parts are enough for our use for instance.
  - blinkov 2y ago
    no, they are different technologies
- tehlike 2y ago
  I am hoping ydb gets a little easier to use in general, and supports some things I use from postgres.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
gnabgib 2y ago
Discussion (64 points, 6 days ago, 27 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457680
- superq 2y ago
  I'm surprised it didn't get more upvotes, but probably because most people missed it at this time of year. (I did the first time too) I found it kinda surprising (it's kinda tough when a primary DB choice is no longer open source!), although not that surprising given the fact that this keeps happening to VC-backed DB startups.
  - tw04 2y ago
    VC backed or not, what is the launch trajectory? Any DB that gets even a little bit of traction is quickly turned into a hosted service by one of the major cloud providers with full support, eliminating the primary path to revenue for these devs. Their options are?? Patreon and pray or go broke? The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat.
    - theamk 2y ago
      Launch as closed source / source available right away? Having alternative suppliers is one of the major advantages of OSS after all. Very few people are complaining about existance of commercial products. People get unhappy when company starts by claiming "open source", attracts followers, and then suddenly becomes "closed source".
    - mroche 2y ago
      The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat. I truly believe that the Red Hat model is still possible to achieve today, but the barrier of entry is much higher than before. What sets Red Hat apart from many of these VC backed projects is what they actually offer. Red Hat doesn't primarily provide "services" or singular components like a database^, but delivers platforms. RHEL, OpenShift, Ansible Automation Platform, OpenStack, Satellite, etc, are the aggregation of many open source projects tied together to make an offering appealing and attractive to enterprises. They produce the infrastructure and management layers of the stack that all your services and applications are deployed on. Working at this level enables a very different degree of flexibility and "safety" in comparison to single application or SaaS style offerings. There's distinct boundaries of their products as well from the upstream variants: Fedora vs CentOS vs RHEL, OKD/SCOS vs OCP/RHCOS, RDO vs RHOSO, Ansible ecosystem vs AAP, etc. Red Hat also delivers on support, training/education, partner-driven sales, and OEM integration/certification. ^ Main exception would really be the Java middleware solutions, but the Runtimes and Integration offerings could be argued as a platform of their own. Same with RHEL/OpenShift AI.
flaptrap 2y ago
[from the FAQs] Where can I find the source code? The source code will be available at https://github.com/scylladb/scylladb https://github.com/scylladb/scylladb. Commit notes and comments will also be available in the same repo.
kstrauser 2y ago
It’s always kind of a relief when I can completely remove something from my long list of things to check out. Life’s too short to bother with proprietary platforms. A closed source database? Hah, no.
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Indeed.
- krawczstef 2y ago
  your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...
  - nemothekid 2y ago
    A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      Even better: that’s 10TB per organization.
      - brianwawok 2y ago
        It’s ok I’m gonna make 100 organizations in the caymans and assign 10 of my clients to each.
  - theamk 2y ago
    > Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.
    - Cpoll 2y ago
anonzzzies 2y ago
It saved us continuing our evaluation of it when our sales contact told us. Our company has a strict nope on basic infra licenses; closed is not an option. We need to be able to switch (and test everything all the time on the open version if we use binaries). We have been building software for over 35 years now and we have been bitten too many times.
- jszymborski 2y ago
  Am I wrong in thinking you can still compile Scylla after the change as it's source available? You just also need a license, right?
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    Yes, but that's not an option for our lawyers; we need the actual freedom to do whatever. Source available is not a thing for us; it's not about the source (we will probably not ever touch it anyway), it is about the freedom when they go out of business, change the rules , etc. But I am not a lawyer but I do agree: we gladly pay licenses and support but if things go crazy (upping the prices to stupid amounts etc) we need to be able to get out without many issues.
    - batisteo 2y ago
      So it's not about Open Source but about Free Software?
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        “Source available” is not Open Source. Some orgs reportedly have access to Windows source code, but that doesn’t mean they’re building and deploying their own version.
    - brianwawok 2y ago
      I do like it. What percent of revenue do you contribute back to OSS? As long as it flows both ways, it’s great.
CyanLite2 2y ago
They intentionally waited til after the AWS reInvent conference to announce this.
- perrohunter 2y ago
  How did the reinvent affect them?
victorbjorklund 2y ago
That is a shame. Scylladb seemed like a useful database.
_gtly 2y ago
Seems that ScyllaDB takes advantage of https://seastar.io https://seastar.io that shards across cores. It seems to still be open source (for the moment, at least). Wonder if other projects could benefit from its ideas.
perrohunter 2y ago
This is happening because no one appreciates the freedom of open source enough to pay for it, the larger projects have a company behind them and need revenue to stay afloat.

56 points by superq 2y ago

> ScyllaDB OSS AGPL 6.2 will stand as the final OSS AGPL release... A free tier of the full-featured ScyllaDB Enterprise will be available. I wonder if this means YDB (from the devs of Clickhouse) will get some traction (https://ydb.tech/ https://ydb.tech/) or if there are other massive scale scylladb-types of DB's out there.

debarshri 2y ago
Is ydb same as yugabyte?
- winrid 2y ago
  It seems like it stands for Yandex DB?
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  You can click the link, but both are attractive; yugabyte and ydb; they are now 'newsql' as people call it I think; sql that scales without the pain (of course there is pain, but other pain). Both have good licenses. Yugabyte is a mixed license, but the apache parts are enough for our use for instance.
- blinkov 2y ago
  no, they are different technologies
tehlike 2y ago
I am hoping ydb gets a little easier to use in general, and supports some things I use from postgres.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

gnabgib 2y ago

Discussion (64 points, 6 days ago, 27 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42457680

superq 2y ago
I'm surprised it didn't get more upvotes, but probably because most people missed it at this time of year. (I did the first time too) I found it kinda surprising (it's kinda tough when a primary DB choice is no longer open source!), although not that surprising given the fact that this keeps happening to VC-backed DB startups.
- tw04 2y ago
  VC backed or not, what is the launch trajectory? Any DB that gets even a little bit of traction is quickly turned into a hosted service by one of the major cloud providers with full support, eliminating the primary path to revenue for these devs. Their options are?? Patreon and pray or go broke? The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat.
  - theamk 2y ago
    Launch as closed source / source available right away? Having alternative suppliers is one of the major advantages of OSS after all. Very few people are complaining about existance of commercial products. People get unhappy when company starts by claiming "open source", attracts followers, and then suddenly becomes "closed source".
  - mroche 2y ago
    The Redhat model just doesn’t work in 2024 with the sharks constantly looking for fresh meat. I truly believe that the Red Hat model is still possible to achieve today, but the barrier of entry is much higher than before. What sets Red Hat apart from many of these VC backed projects is what they actually offer. Red Hat doesn't primarily provide "services" or singular components like a database^, but delivers platforms. RHEL, OpenShift, Ansible Automation Platform, OpenStack, Satellite, etc, are the aggregation of many open source projects tied together to make an offering appealing and attractive to enterprises. They produce the infrastructure and management layers of the stack that all your services and applications are deployed on. Working at this level enables a very different degree of flexibility and "safety" in comparison to single application or SaaS style offerings. There's distinct boundaries of their products as well from the upstream variants: Fedora vs CentOS vs RHEL, OKD/SCOS vs OCP/RHCOS, RDO vs RHOSO, Ansible ecosystem vs AAP, etc. Red Hat also delivers on support, training/education, partner-driven sales, and OEM integration/certification. ^ Main exception would really be the Java middleware solutions, but the Runtimes and Integration offerings could be argued as a platform of their own. Same with RHEL/OpenShift AI.

flaptrap 2y ago

[from the FAQs] Where can I find the source code? The source code will be available at https://github.com/scylladb/scylladb https://github.com/scylladb/scylladb. Commit notes and comments will also be available in the same repo.

kstrauser 2y ago

It’s always kind of a relief when I can completely remove something from my long list of things to check out. Life’s too short to bother with proprietary platforms. A closed source database? Hah, no.

anonzzzies 2y ago
Indeed.
krawczstef 2y ago
your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...
- nemothekid 2y ago
  A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Even better: that’s 10TB per organization.
    - brianwawok 2y ago
      It’s ok I’m gonna make 100 organizations in the caymans and assign 10 of my clients to each.
- theamk 2y ago
  > Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.
  - Cpoll 2y ago

anonzzzies 2y ago

It saved us continuing our evaluation of it when our sales contact told us. Our company has a strict nope on basic infra licenses; closed is not an option. We need to be able to switch (and test everything all the time on the open version if we use binaries). We have been building software for over 35 years now and we have been bitten too many times.

jszymborski 2y ago
Am I wrong in thinking you can still compile Scylla after the change as it's source available? You just also need a license, right?
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  Yes, but that's not an option for our lawyers; we need the actual freedom to do whatever. Source available is not a thing for us; it's not about the source (we will probably not ever touch it anyway), it is about the freedom when they go out of business, change the rules , etc. But I am not a lawyer but I do agree: we gladly pay licenses and support but if things go crazy (upping the prices to stupid amounts etc) we need to be able to get out without many issues.
  - batisteo 2y ago
    So it's not about Open Source but about Free Software?
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      “Source available” is not Open Source. Some orgs reportedly have access to Windows source code, but that doesn’t mean they’re building and deploying their own version.
  - brianwawok 2y ago
    I do like it. What percent of revenue do you contribute back to OSS? As long as it flows both ways, it’s great.

CyanLite2 2y ago

They intentionally waited til after the AWS reInvent conference to announce this.

perrohunter 2y ago
How did the reinvent affect them?

victorbjorklund 2y ago

That is a shame. Scylladb seemed like a useful database.

_gtly 2y ago

Seems that ScyllaDB takes advantage of https://seastar.io https://seastar.io that shards across cores. It seems to still be open source (for the moment, at least). Wonder if other projects could benefit from its ideas.

perrohunter 2y ago

This is happening because no one appreciates the freedom of open source enough to pay for it, the larger projects have a company behind them and need revenue to stay afloat.