InfoWorld reports
MariaDB Corp. has announced that release 2.0 of its MaxScale database proxy software is henceforth no longer open source. The organization has made it source-available under a proprietary license that promises each release will eventually become open source once it's out of date.
MaxScale is at the pinnacle of MariaDB Corp.'s monetization strategy--it's the key to deploying MariaDB databases at scale. The thinking seems to be that making it mandatory to pay for a license will extract top dollar from deep-pocketed corporations that might otherwise try to use it free of charge. This seems odd for a company built on MariaDB, which was originally created to liberate MySQL from the clutches of Oracle.
The license in question, the Business Source License, was devised by MySQL creator Michael "Monty" Widenius in 2013. It allows use for evaluation and sets a date when the source code will be placed under the GPL, but it's explicitly proprietary in pursuit of commercial ends.
Monty blogs
Here is a statement from a large software company when I asked them to support MariaDB development with financial support:
As you may remember, we're a fairly traditional and conservative company. A donation from us would require feature work in exchange for the donation. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a feature that I would want developed that we would be willing to pay for this year.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 21 2016, @11:14PM
Windows is open source too if you join a club that gets a source license such as a large corporation or prestigious research university.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:33AM
Ha ha only serious, can't possibly be true, let's moderate Funny because Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Enterprise_Source_Licensing_Program [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Windows_Academic_Program [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday August 22 2016, @02:07AM
Ha ha only serious, can't possibly be true, let's moderate Funny because Windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Enterprise_Source_Licensing_Program [wikipedia.org]
"The ESLP license agreement is among the most restrictive of the licenses associated with shared source programs, allowing no modifications of the code." (same link)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Windows_Academic_Program
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/events/fs2006/papers/WindowsAcademicProgram_ArkadyRetik.doc [microsoft.com] :
Neither of these seems to be an example of open source [opensource.org] software.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:11AM
If there is a license that restricts what the user can do with the item, that is NOT "open".
It's why M$ made up the deceptive name "shared source".
If you have to buy a particular proprietary item in order to make the "open" thing work, that is NOT "open" either.
It's why M$ made up the deceptive name "open core".
If the license can be revoked, that is NOT "open" either.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:53AM
GPL restricts your rights to source code you write, that is NOT "open" either.
It's why GNU made up the deceptive name "copyleft".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @09:37AM
GPL restricts your rights to source code you write
If you chose existing GPL code to modify, you knew the rules going in.
Don't like the rules? Don't start modifying the code.
It would be less deceptive of you to say that GPL restricts your rights to screw over others who have added code to the project under the understanding that the user always comes first.
Don't like the GPL?
Write your own code from scratch and release it under your choice of license.
...but don't assume that you can sponge off of other devs whose top value is freedom for the user.
copyleft
...which leaves copyright in place and adds MORE rights for the user.
Again, you can always build your codebase from scratch without leeching off of anyone else's work.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday August 22 2016, @08:33AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:32PM
Sounds like the build chain for a previous job. "If you can take the source and figure out how to build it... you're hired!"
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday August 23 2016, @07:56AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday August 24 2016, @03:14PM
It is somewhat ironic that a continuous integration product has a obfuscated build chain.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh