To mitigate these limitations and reduce write pressure, we’ve migrated, and continue to migrate, shardable (i.e. workloads that can be horizontally partitioned), write-heavy workloads to sharded systems such as Azure Cosmos DB, optimizing application logic to minimize unnecessary writes. We also no longer allow adding new tables to the current PostgreSQL deployment. New workloads default to the sharded systems.
“wow, we’ve made our postgres so good and fast… by moving heavy workloads to a NoSQL database engine”. Truly mind-blowing, OpenAI. Just like their LLM service, not even their technical staff can stop themselves from lying and writing misleading statements.
The only interesting part could have been what they use for caching… but of course they don’t give any details at all. And all the rest is already well-known DBOps stuff… and basically all automatic with stuff like cnpg.
Yeah open source monetization sucks in the corporate world. Maybe there could be a license that goes something along the lines of “you may use this for free as long as your company’s yearly revenue isn’t over X €”
I think a better enforcable solution would be taxing the shit out of these corporations, then give state grants to open source projects. I actually looked into licenses that would allow me to force corpos to donate, but they’re unenforcable.
Tying it to revenue wouldn’t work that well due to inflation. Metas AI has a license that basically says that, but with a user number. Both ideas however would mean that the project isn’t open source anymore
Open source doesn’t mean free for everyone for every purpose
Quote from the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Not everyone agrees:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.
First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
Yes, quote from your Bible. It will always be right.
I hope we eventually get a copyleft lisence that states: “by using this product in a comercial product you have commited to supporting it, either by monetary fee or doing development work for it behalf, otherwise this product is entirely free of cost and is provided as-is”.
Edit: and the developers can freely reproduce the GPL license exception for all their products:
// Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional // permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version // 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.Currently, and I don’t know why, this extremely useful license exception for (C++) headers, which is meant for compiled down to machine-code is not usable for anything else. If your library is not part of GCC, the GPL does not help you here. As such, if you publish a header only library under GPL, you cannot state that the code using your code is not under “API” boundary, ie. free of GPL, while keeping your precious header under GPL. And no, LGPL, does not save you here.
You only have non-copyleft lisences like MIT (disgusting), Apache (shitly less gross), BSL-1.0 (still non copyleft) or LGPL (not gross, but extremely limiting.)
And, if you still publish something, I plead it is at least under GPL, since this guarantees a life for the produce, non-negotioable, forever, which I think is still better than dying and giving up to pooh of public domain.
You can just dual-license as AGPL and a separate commercial license that you negotiate on a case-by-case basis.
I don’t think believe using GPL will achieve anything. I am a professional developer. If I’m looking for a library for a problem and find one that’s GPL, then I will simply not consider using it. What are the options here?
I could search for a different library with an MIT license. Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there are none.
I could ask my boss if I can release all our source code to the public. Yeah, sure. That’s going to happen.
I could ask my boss if I can have a bit of budget to haggle out a license with the library author. That’s a waste of time and money. Hammering out a license agreement across language boundaries and jurisdictions will involve a lot of lawyering and waiting that’s just not worth it. The additional fees would likely even outweigh the agreed payment to the author.
So what’s left? I don’t use a library and program the thing myself. It might take a while, but I’m way cheaper than lawyers. So in the end, GPL won’t do a thing to force a business to support FOSS, but will annoy developers.
That’s why, if I ever am in a position to meaningfully add to FOSS, it will be under the MIT license.
It sounds more like you think you are entitled to have access to a library to begin with. Why should one exist that you can exploit in a way that your business wants rather than one that respects freedom—this is where I completely agree with the software freedom folks.
If you work for a private business that is earning profit, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect to pay for a library or build it yourself. Why should something else just exist for your business to exploit?
It sounds more like you think you are entitled to have access to a library to begin with.
Could you point me to the part of my comment that led you to that conclusion?
First of all, I want to be clear that I wasn’t trying to be harsh. But it’s just your entire comment. As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself (or pay someone to do it for you).
Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled? Meaning you feel entitled to access a software library that exists with a license you can exploit. You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.
What I’m saying is that if you’re writing your own software with a private business, why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally to exploit and not contribute back to the community?
As soon as you say, “I was looking for a library,” you’ve already indicated that you feel entitled to find a library somewhere rather than build it yourself
That interpretation is completely on you. Whenever one is writing code, it’s good practice to check if it hasn’t been written before. No-one needs to re-invent the wheel for the umpteenth time.
Do you not understand how that comes across as entitled?
No. This approach is literally taught at Uni. Don’t repeat work. That’s not only in programming. A chemist’s saying is “6 months in the lab can save you 2 hours in the library.” Blindly doing everything from scratch is just incredibly poor use of resources.
You’ll reject a GPL licensed library because it is copylefted and you know your management would never go for GPLing the entire work.
Yes. I don’t see how that’s a contentious point. I think I made my position clear in my last comment.
why do you expect there to just be some library you can use internally
That assumption is based on experience. The whole JavaScript ecosystem thrives on the idea of building stuff based on others’ work. It’s you, btw, that chose to interpret ‘looking for’ as ‘expecting to exist’. I never said that, nor did I mean it.
You shouldn’t be using GPL licensed software for that. End of the story. The person who created that software doesn’t want you tp use in your proprietary software and thats exactly why it is GPL. Only Free software are supposed to use them.
Think about it. You cannot use proprietary code of other softwares in your workplace, so why should you be able to use free software in yours? The work done by you for your employer is not benefiting free software, unless yours is also free. So yeah GPL is a “fuck proprietary” license by design. And it does achive its thing. It is good for other free software, and everyone is forced to preserve the freedom in it.
If I don’t want to spend money on tips at the restaurant, even less will I want to spend it on donations
The difference is that a tip is “you’re already getting paid to do your job, why would I pay you to do your job?”. Whereas this is “you gave me this for free, so maybe if I make a bunch of money I could show appreciation for that gift” or pay-it-forward so the next guy can also get a free start, etc.
And yes I know they’re are busted places on this Earth where basically servers don’t already get paid to do their job and are thus reliant on tips as income, but that’s a different problem…
I have third world money. Every penny I make goes into things I need to survive, not things I could get for free after a Google search
That’s cool man, we’re not talking about you. We’re talking about Open AI, who pays employees hundreds of thousands of American dollars a year.
You should be allowed to use it for free. And a donation from a company like them, could make it easier for a person like you to get an awesome cutting edge tool for free!
