[simonw]

Reminiscent of what Deno are doing with their Deno K/V feature, which works in the open source project using SQLite but gets a big upgrade if you use it with Deno Deploy: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/deno-kv

I'm OK with this. Commercial open source projects need a business model. I get why this can be controversial, but the ecosystem needs to find ways to fund future development and I'm willing to compromise on purity if it means people are getting paid for their work.

(Actually it looks like the UI feature may depend on loading closed source assets across the Internet? If so that changes my comfort level a lot, I'm not keen on that compromise.)

[jarpineh]

I have thought that the commercial nature of the (heh) mother company here, DuckDB labs, is support contracts and the like. Whilst MotherDuck is just another VC funded company in the DuckDB ecosystem. This new extension being added the list of default extensions blurs the line. That it seemingly is a proxy to closed source product from another company makes things even murkier. I can see a point for a for-pay external extension, but this one feels more like an AD for other company's services.

[datadrivenangel]

DuckDB labs has stock in MotherDuck to align ownership.

I actually really like the close partnerships in theory because it aligns incentives, but this crosses the line by not being open enough. The tight motherduck integration with DuckDB for externally hosted DuckDB/Motherduck databases is fine and good: preferential treatment where the software makes it easy to use the sponsoring service. The local UI which is actually fully dependent on the external service is off-putting. It's a little less bad because it's an extension, but it's still worrying from a governance and principals perspective.

[dowager_dan99]

I don't see this as the same thing. Deno is an OS product within a commercial enterprise. DuckDB is an OS project/org; MotherDuck is a for-profit company. They have tight integration and partnerships but were largely independent. This seems to be blurring that line. There is a huge ecosystem around SQLite without this confusion.

[simlevesque]

https://github.com/denoland/denokv

You can self host Deno KV since over a year.

[jorams]

That doesn't change what they're saying. The self-hosted backend you're linking is a network-accessible version of the local SQLite backend. The hosted backend is transparently globally replicated and built on FoundationDB, with a very different (better) scaling story.

[tracker1]

Given the floss implementation, if one wanted, they could create their own DenoKV backed by anything they like... Azure Cosmos, DynamoDB, CockroachLabs are all possible, and given the relatively small API, should be relatively easy to do if anyone wanted to do such a thing.

[simonw]

Right, that's mentioned in my article: https://til.simonwillison.net/deno/deno-kv#user-content-upda...

[blackoil]

I think primary concern is will DucDb pull something like RedisLabs. Wherein they are open source till it gets enough traction and after that pull the rug.

[threecheese]

To be fair, the “traction” here was AWS using their massive competitive levers to kill RedisLabs’ long-existing (and quite reasonable/tolerated by open source) monetization avenue, risking the continued funding for redis.

To characterize this as a rug pull is unfair IMO.