For the world in general, indeed, it is better than having a dead or hardly-maintained project (which needs financial incentives from project owners). Don't you agree?
I don't really think increasing the world's stock of proprietary software is something to laud. Still, with their "switch to Apache after 3 years", I guess that this is still, on balance, better than nothing.
What I reject is the idea that the only choices are "make this kind of switch" OR "having a dead or hardly-maintained project". Sounds a bit "fallacy of the excluded middle" to me. But they have the right to license their thing however they want, so what right do any of us really have to complain. I just find it frustrating to see people retreating from an Open Source position given my own deeply rooted ideological bias towards F/OSS.
> What I reject is the idea that the only choices are "make this kind of switch" OR "having a dead or hardly-maintained project". Sounds a bit "fallacy of the excluded middle" to me.
In general, that's of course obviously true. For software like this, that's geared toward use by businesses and SaaS applications, I agree with Cockroach Labs. Their hosted solution doesn't stand a chance if AWS decides to do a hosted version of CockroachDB, and they won't see a penny of that revenue. Since contributions outside of employees of Cockroach Labs are pretty minimal, it's a textbook recipe for eventual project death.
> But they have the right to license their thing however they want, so what right do any of us really have to complain.
Correct. And yet that doesn't seem to stop some people...
> I just find it frustrating to see people retreating from an Open Source position given my own deeply rooted ideological bias towards F/OSS.
I get that, and at some time in the past I probably agreed with you. At this point I'm too cynical to believe that Free Software can succeed solely on its merits. The economics just don't work out, especially when you're in a part of the industry with a lot of competition.
And regardless, the new licensing terms are (in practical terms) identical to Apache for the vast majority of people who already use or might use CockroachDB. All they're restricting is the ability to create a Cockroach DB hosting business, and if you really want to do that, my moral position is that you should be financially contributing back to the DB anyway; otherwise you're taking freeloading to an extreme degree there.
In general, that's of course obviously true. For software like this, that's geared toward use by businesses and SaaS applications, I agree with Cockroach Labs. Their hosted solution doesn't stand a chance if AWS decides to do a hosted version of CockroachDB, and they won't see a penny of that revenue.
I understand why this is the default assumption that people tend to make, but I'm not sure this analysis goes deep enough. I believe things are more nuanced than "you can't compete with Amazon". There are always a lot of different axes on which you can segment a market, and different attributes on which one can compete. And ironically, the fact that AWS (and other public cloud providers) exist simultaneously makes it easier to run your own cloud based service. And yes, it's possible to have something hosted on AWS while Amazon compete with you at the same time - see Netflix for the obvious example.
Note that I'm not saying it's easy to do any of this, and maybe a thorough enough analysis would reveal that, for CockroachDB it really is the case that "we can't compete in a market where AWS is playing". But I wouldn't necessarily take that as a given without having done a lot more research.
What I reject is the idea that the only choices are "make this kind of switch" OR "having a dead or hardly-maintained project". Sounds a bit "fallacy of the excluded middle" to me. But they have the right to license their thing however they want, so what right do any of us really have to complain. I just find it frustrating to see people retreating from an Open Source position given my own deeply rooted ideological bias towards F/OSS.