Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

In principle, yes I agree, but in practice: no! AGPL is a minefield, it's a shame it is, but it is. The spirit of GPL (and AGPL) was that you could do whatever you want but you have to release the source, but they have continually been handicapped by the evolution of software. Existing licenses are not appropriate for SaaS businesses, they are either too liberal or too restrictive. What you're seeing here is the right move: I can use this for free, for personal use or business. I can't sell it directly -- why should I be able to? It's sleazy and encourages closed ecosystems (AWS, GCP, etc.).

The spirit of free software is very much alive in this decision, methinks.






> The spirit of free software is very much alive in this decision, methinks.

From the text of the Timescale License, clause 2.1 (d): "A license to prepare, compile, and test Derivative Works of the TSL Licensed Software Source Code solely in a Non-Production Environment". Further along, in section 2.2, the following prohibition is laid out: "You agree not to, except as expressly permitted in Section 2.1(d), prepare Derivative Works of any TSL Licensed Software"

That removes the freedom to run your own modifications in production. Pretty incompatible with the spirit of free software.


This is only for the parts of the code that are licensed under the Timescale license (most code is not).

Personally, I don't have a problem with this, and think it encourages users to upstream their changes.


> ... it encourages users to upstream their changes.

Not really, and not as much. Not really because one cannot begin using their own changes unless and until the upstreaming process concludes successfully. Not as much because, unlike with open-source licenses, one does not get to keep their copyright.

One of the important reasons I personally use and support open-source is the freedom to not only inspect (which the TSL provides) but to also not have to ask someone else and wait on them to make any changes I need to the software I use. The restriction against production use prevents that.

One of the important reasons I personally don't mind contributing to open-source, is the fact that I get to retain my rights.

> This is only for the parts of the code that are licensed under the Timescale license (most code is not).

This is a moot point because without the parts that are TSL licensed, we'd not be having this discussion.


> The spirit of GPL (and AGPL) was that you could do whatever you want but you have to release the source, but they have continually been handicapped by the evolution of software.

This was largely my assessment, as well. And the motive behind the work that led to Parity (https://paritylicense.com).




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: