[tobiemh]

Hi lovasoa thanks for your comment! We did try to stay as open as possible, but unfortunately the license (as you noted) is not an actual OSI approved license. We've got a whole page about why we chose this license, what the limitations are, and how we are contributing to open source (https://surrealdb.com/license).

Effectively though we didn't want to limit the database usage in anyway except for preventing people from offering a paid-for hosted SurrealDB-as-a-Service. Some database companies offer a 'core' open source database, and then put their enterprise features behind an enterprise license (or close source them completely). We wanted to build in the open, but at the same time it is our intention to offer a cloud database version so that developers can get going really easily in due course. This doesn't mean that developers have to use it though :) !

Let me know if you have any other questions or points!

[lovasoa]

Why wouldn't putting only some enterprise features under your "business" license work for you ?

I don't think anyone will want to make a business out of the database you wrote until it gets massively popular. And it won't get massively popular if it's under a proprietary license.

[tobiemh]

Hi lovasoa, this is definitely an option, and we're open to suggestions in this area!

[lovasoa]

Great ! I would love to be able to use a version of SurrealDB, even with a more limited feature set, in my open-source projects.

[tobiemh]

Ok lovasoa, we will definitely give this a thought!!! Just out of interest (and so I can understand your position / usecase better), how would the current license prevent you using it in any open-source projects at the moment?

[lovasoa]

Well, I could, but a free software with non-free dependencies is not of much use...

Would you use another software with the same licensing restrictions as SurrealDB in SurrealDB itself?

[jpambrun]

I appreciate that and fully understand, but, in many places, having a non standard licence pretty much guaranties it can't be used. I can't imagine volunteering myself to engage with legal to get this approved.. I don't need this is my life..

[tobiemh]

Hi jpambrun we're definitely open to comments and suggestions around this!

[jpambrun]

I imagine it was rhetorical, but as you probably imagined I have no suggestions. I understand your needs and imperatives, but they are unfortunately incompatible with mine. Getting a green light on using custom licence is near impossible. Procurement and contracting for database as service is also a nightmare.

I think mongo and elastic could get away with it because they already had captive users. For illustration, I didn't really look at your offering, I went to the licencing section and just summarily disqualified. I am also unlikely to use it personal pet projects, because the learnings cannot be leverage in my paying job.

[tobiemh]

No not rhetorical - was genuinely interested in any suggestions. Out of interest, if the product was split (like other database products) into a 'core' open-source version, and an 'enterprise' limited license version, would this make any difference?

[jpambrun]

Depends what is behind the custom license and how well it's communicated. If it's only the db as service management magic I wouldn't mind. Anything more and I would worry I would miss out on upcoming features few years down the line.