I know I only bother with these more annoying products after I've already tried and failed with the alternatives. Its not so much the few minutes dealing with registration and the other time working out if access to the private repositories are going to be a hassle with my environment and security policies, its the first sign that you are dealing with a company that is going to be a hassle.
So please leave up the registration forms, because it signals to me that I will be dealing aggressive sales departments, fine print and hidden expenses. And I'm only going to do that when I've exhausted my alternatives. Maybe it isn't true, but its what I've come to believe over the last few decades, and I'm not the loser in this scenario since I just investigate the easier to deal with solutions first. And not much point continuing if I find something good enough and free, which is why I'm currently migrating my old DSE clusters to new hardware and Apache Cassandra 3.11 despite my poor experiences with older versions (I was pleasantly surprised with 3.11 and look forward to seeing 4.0).
Also Scylla provides non-gated access for AWS users with ready-to-consume AMIs
As far as compatibility w/ Apache Cassandra 3.x+, is there anything outstanding?
The big remaining item is lightweight transactions.
As glommer and PeterCorless mentioned, I'd be happy to share thoughts and learnings about it.
Feel free to show up and ask questions mate: you can easily find me on the community Slack channel, freenode IRC or Twitter.
Fixed link: https://www.scylladb.com/tech-talk/numberly-on-joining-billi...
DynamoDB begat Cassandra which begat ScyllaDB.
- Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0
- Commercial licenses are also available. Contact us for more information.
- Apache Cassandra drivers: Apache License v2.0
- Licenses will vary. See the individual driver documentation for details.
- Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
This angers me very much, they are lying about being OSS which was started by OSI (https://opensource.org/) as a response to GPL/AGPL/FSF/RMS's non-open policies, when in reality only their client drivers are OSS but their servers are commercial or AGPL.
I say this, as someone who has spent years working on and consciously giving away popular DB software as zlib/MIT/apache2 with my project - which is now run in production by Internet Archive, top 300 global site, and others (https://github.com/amark/gun) - just to see more and more other DBs steal "OSS" label to falsify marketing, and more and more DBs become "open core" crippleware. We need more people to keep campaigning against these outright license lies and the faux-humble "I can't survive as OSS unless you pay for commercial license" junk, if you can't survive doing OSS then just don't do OSS!! Lying you are OSS but actually AGPL instead is just a shady ploy to get more dev/biz clicks.
You don't have to take my word for it, just check out their own site:
The licenses you are talking about, such as MIT or Apache, are called _permissive licenses_ whereas AGPL is a _copyleft license_. However, both types of licenses can be open source licenses, if they fill the OSI requirements.
All the licenses(Except the Third-Party Driver licenses) look opensource to me.
There's a ton of legal grey area that hasn't been tested or has been hand waved away (do I have to open source my web application if it connects to a database that is AGPL licensed?)
With the GPL, you are required to make your modifications available as GPL if you distribute the modified program. This creates a loophole for ASPs, which can modify GPL’d code, but because they offer it as a service (and don’t distribute the program), they don’t have to share the modifications. AGPL closes this loophole by explicitly saying that network access is considered as “distribution”.
So no, you don't need to make your web application AGPL. Just like you don't make all your applications running on Linux GPL just because they happen to communicate with the kernel over system calls. Copyleft licenses are relevant only if your code is a derivative work of the original.
Open Source Software (OSS) ensures users have access and can freely modify source code for software they use which the AGPL does, it’s even even more copyleft than the GPL as it ensures modifications to software by ASPs are also made available.