CockroachDB scurries off to proprietary software land
- Reference: 1724412590
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/08/23/cockroachdb_opinion/
- Source link:
Some of them then get the bright idea of switching to a fauxpen source license, such as the [1]Business Source License (BSL) and [2]Server Side Public License (SSPL). This enables them to dump their open source obligations and, hopefully, make more money.
Linux Foundation is leading fight against fauxpen source [3]READ MORE
Yet what if even the far less onerous requirements chafe as well? Well, in that case, why keep the fig leaf of a fauxpen source license and just go full proprietary? That's what [4]CockroachDB did with its distributed transactional database .
Of course, that's not how the company explained its move. It announced it would drop its BSL 1.1 for its free "Core" product in favor of a new Enterprise licensing structure for self-hosted users. This, claimed CockroachDB CEO Spencer Kimball, will provide "all of our users with the full breadth of CockroachDB capabilities." It will also provide "a fair exchange of value." Fair according to whom?
Yeah, yeah, it's for our users, yadda-yadda.
[5]
The CockroachDB Enterprise Free version will appear in November 2024 with version 24.3. The code will still be available to look at but not be used. You can use it for free if you're an individual developer, student, academic researcher, or a business with under $10 million in annual revenues. Of course, moving ahead, you'll need to prove this every year before your license is renewed. If it's renewed, that is.
[6]
[7]
As one [8]observer put it on Ycombinator : "I understand the goal, and the perceived abuse of the Core edition. But the problem with the Enterprise edition is that it's quite expensive, 'contact us' salesy, and it feels like taking a bite of this edition is possibly getting into bed with a future Oracle/landlord type of relationship where you end up squeezed by your database vendor."
Another person [9]followed up : "It seems that whenever an open source project is run by a VC-backed company, it sooner or later ends up like this. Increasingly, it seems that 'open source' is just the teaser to get people interested and then when investors want revenue growth, the rug gets pulled."
[10]
Exactly so. It's not, however, that "open source" is just a teaser. True, developers, in particular, are attracted to open source programs. But if it weren't for the help of uncompensated open source programmers, CockroachDB wouldn't exist.
What makes the CockroachDB case unique is that it had already dumped open source. Now it's no longer even pretending to be a fauxpen source. It's a pure proprietary play with a free taste.
It's not like CockroachDB or the other companies that have adopted fauxpen source haven't made money. Far from it! In 2021, CockroachDB had a [11]valuation of $5 billion . While the VC-financed company hasn't announced revenue numbers, it did [12]claim in 2023 that it had landed two Fortune 50 banks as customers .
[13]Intel's processor failures: A cautionary tale of business vs engineering
[14]CrowdStrike meets Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will
[15]The graying open source community needs fresh blood
[16]Windows: Insecure by design
At an expert guesstimate, I expect CockroachDB will be well over $100 million in revenue this year. But when VCs are calling the shots, that's not close to good enough. CockroachDB may already be a unicorn in valuation, but a billion in revenue would be even sweeter.
That's why companies such as [17]Elastic , MongoDB, [18]Redis , and [19]Terraform adopted fauxpen source licenses. It's all about increasing profits. Now, though, the question is: "Will they also transition to proprietary licenses?" I expect they'll watch CockroachDB closely to see how its move will play – and pay out.
[20]
If CockroachDB successfully converts fauxpen source "freeloaders" into paying customers, they'll all follow.
The ultimate result might be to muddy the water for future open source software companies. The balance between maintaining an open source ethos and ensuring business viability has always been delicate. This move might wreck it.
If corporate open source becomes just a route to increasing VC and founders' profits, will anyone bother to work on such projects? I doubt it. In the short run, CockroachDB may profit, but in the long run, the open source business ecosystem might completely collapse. ®
Get our [21]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/11/hashicorp_bsl_licence/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/10/16/mongodb_licensning_change/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/12/linux_foundation_opinion/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/19/cockroachdb_abandons_open_core/
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZsiyI-FDMakn8JOTZBNgagAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZsiyI-FDMakn8JOTZBNgagAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZsiyI-FDMakn8JOTZBNgagAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41256621
[9] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41256788
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZsiyI-FDMakn8JOTZBNgagAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/16/cockroach-rolls-on-with-278m-series-f-on-5b-valuation/
[12] https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/banks-leaving-legacy-rdbms-for-cockroachdb/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/opinion_column_intel/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/26/crowdstrike_meets_murphys_law/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/15/opinion_open_source_attract_devs/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/28/windows_insecure_by_design/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/21/aws_not_ok_says_elastic/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/22/redis_changes_license/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/11/hashicorp_bsl_licence/
[20] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZsiyI-FDMakn8JOTZBNgagAAABE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[21] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
People will bother to work on a project if you pay them
Free as in speech, not as in beer . Yes, I realise that 'free beer' is exactly what the public hears, and unfortunately what a large number of open source companies continue to push, but that's not the important part.
However to make free software sustainable, if you're gaining benefit from it, you should be paying money and/or actively contributing.
Pay a decent rate for adding defined functionality, and I bet suddenly there would be a bit more interest.
Even if there is a danger of the product being forked and made commercial, and you've contributed in the past, you've still gained benefit in using the software in the interim, and have the option to continue to take the pre fork code.
Or is your real complaint 'they're better at business than me, and I want money' - because that's definitely what some open source products really think.
Fork due any time now, I suppose.
Never forget...
...that the ability to pull stunts like this is the reason that corporate-driven projects generally require that ownership of contributions is signed over to them.
Yes, they agreed to release *your* contribution under the GPL- or whatever- and did so, so this is academic, right?
Except that, no, this matters.
The GPL dictates the terms that *others* have permission to use your code under.
That's why they can't turn it proprietary if they don't own others' contributions, because they only have their rights under the GPL et al.
But once they own it, it's *their* code, and while they can't withdraw the right to use existing contributions under free terms, they *can* release it under a different license or use it as the basis for future versions with proprietary code.
This doesn't stop anyone forking the last free version, but it's still far from ideal.
[If CockroachDB successfully converts fauxpen source "freeloaders" into paying customers, they'll all follow.]
By past experiences people are way more willing to move to something else that paying, only a minimum of users that weren't already paying for the Enterprise Edition will be willing to pay.
Yes moving/migrating databases is a pain but when you don't have the money you don't have the money. Making a mirror database in a true open source program may be something people might want to look into.
CockroachDB
Yeah, it has cockroach in the name.
Should've guessed . . .