[ericb]

Not the parent, but great to hear that clarification! By the way, doubt I would complain if Prometheus didn't look impressive. :-)

One other bug report on the license language front, this language could be construed to prohibit uses like Prometheus--unless there's a definition of operations products I missed (possible).

> are not primarily database storage or operations products

Suggested edit:

> are not primarily database storage or *database operations products*

[mfreed]

Oh, English parsing =)

Yes, database is a modifier to both storage and operations: database (storage or operations) products.

It's a good edit; will keep in mind.

(For good reason, we generally just don't like to "update" the text of the license too much, even for minor nits.)

Thanks!

[ericb]

Oh sorry, said Prometheus above, meant TimeScale is impressive!

Understood. If you see the other thread regarding the "such as" language, there is a serious edit that you can batch-up and repair to reflect your intentions with this one.

The "such as" language, retains your right to sue anyone for license violations if their API allows any customer action that causes structure changes indirectly, via the DDL, even under the hood (materialized views, too, presumably). That's way way more use cases than just repackaging TSDB as a service. That's a landmine, which when people compare and choose databases, they'd just assume avoid, even if otherwise comfortable with a cloud-protective license. Making this clearer and less onerous probably will probably pay for itself with a wider top-of-funnel for the product with more people more confident in the license.

The "We Clarified It In a Thread on Hacker News Public License" is probably not as ideal as updating the places that need clarification. :-P