undefined

points

[-]

A client introduced me to Arangodb which I felt was a "secret weapon" that I used for a lot of side projects. Then this came out

https://arango.ai/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/ADB-Community-L...

and it is dead to me. I want my head! I can accept GPL, Apache, MIT or some legit open source license. For my projects I see two possible paths which I want to have open: (1) building a commercial service on top of a database (like my RSS reader) where you can't necessarily draw a clear line between what is allowed and what is not allowed, for instance I have an adaptation layer that makes postgres look like the part of arangodb that I actually use (I do manually rewrite AQL queries into a DSL that extends AlchemyAPI) and if I did something similar over arango is this reselling? (2) an open source project where I want to tell people "go forth and use this code" and not have to hire a lawyer to know what they can and can't do.

Once a vendor has shown they have this attitude, I expect them to change their license for the worse in the future -- I just don't want to invest my time and energy in their platform.

by sarchertech24 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

The license you linked was too much for me because it included limitations 100 GB of data and providing audit logs for the company to inspect.

But I don’t have a problem with people inserting clauses to prevent Amazon from taking over. I don’t expect free work from people forever. If I’m going to use an open source project to build a commercial product, I would only do so if I’m ok forking and maintaining the project myself if necessary.

by PaulHoule1 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

The license wasn't like that when I first got involved or I wouldn't have gotten involved.

I don't have any fear that Postgres will get relicensed with a worse license than it has. But I see any relicensing or license that is more restrictive than a standard license as a slippery slope that makes me think "I don't want to invest in this platform" thanks to that experience.

I'm a software developer, not a lawyer. I understand standard software licenses and don't feel I have to re-read them or think too much about them. By using one and being dependent on systems that use them I feel like I'm reducing the burden on people who might adopt my open source.

by tudorg1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

This is why I think sites like this one should show license information and make it simple to filter by OSS license.

Otherwise it's the same trap, just one level deeper.

by throwaway73563 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Yes, that condition makes it no longer open source software.

It also has the effect of making software adopting such licenses getting removed from open source distributions.

by sarchertech2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If someone takes the MIT license and adds unless your last name ends in ezos then yes it no longer meats the definition of Open Source published by the OSI. But there’s nothing holy about that definition or being “open source”. OSI is just a group funded by companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

And if they aren’t calling themselves Open Source, then why do you care?

by ubercore3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It's also postgres, but timescaledb's licensing (and therefore its lack of good support in azure managed postgres) is a bummer.