I am worried the licence change can be a huge stopper for adoption of this great library. In my company, we wanted to create some kind of application skeleton, a full stack (back-end to front-end) and make it a public project (we were planning the JUG meetings about it), so other developers/companies could benefit and contribute. We have few similar applications already created in a similar manner, all of them use JOOQ instead of JPA.
The problem is, the developers are the most ignored people in IT business. Most of the time we have zero influence as, for example, what database to use in the new system, because our customer already has... Oracle or MSSQL and we can do nothing about it. Also, in many companies, no one will allow to spend like EUR400 per developer only because they choose some kind of, unknown for the majority, library. I can hear the voices: do you really need this or is it just your craving to use it? I am very sad to hear this huge licence change. Not because I would never spend "x" times EUR400 for a project which is supposed to bring like many times more profit (although there are projects which brings loss), but because I know that developers won't be able to persuade the guys who pay for it. I do understand your point of view, though. I am just not sure if it won't stop/remove the adoption of this great library. It is great, but it's "just" (no offense) a library. The "money" guys do not understand this. They are going to spend like dozen times more for some totally stupid licences for unnecessary products, like Oracle or MS SQL + MS WINDOWS + MS[whatever] because other guys with nice suits work hard to make them feel they need it. They will buy 3 super expensive servers which could handle like 100x more traffic they will ever need instead of one simple, but they will never understand why those developers need to pay licence for something unknown, which is, bye the way, "so easy" to replace for something well known (like Hibernate). Of course, there are also companies which will not think twice and just buy the licences if the developers will request ones. But for then to buy it, developers need to know it and they need to be convinced. They can be convinced if they hear and read about this, or about other projects using it, I am just worried there will be much less "noise" about JOOQ after the change. At the end, I would like to thank you for this great library and I hope I am wrong, and it will raise in popularity. I also hope I will be able to create new projects in future which will use JOOQ, but the choice is not up to me any more. Regards, Witold Szczerba On 9 October 2013 22:27, Eric Schwarzenbach <[email protected]> wrote: > Lukas, > > Maybe you've already considered this, but let me point out one consequence > of this in the form of my own real life case: I'm currently working on > library in which I am currently making use of JOOQ. My intention is to > release this library as open source. My intention is also for it to work > with any database. With this license change, I don't think I can do so. So I > will be seriously considering abandoning the use of JOOQ in this tool. I > will probably have to. > > My company makes another product (not open source) which can work with any > database (it has a small module which makes a couple of adjustments for > different database vendors...it isn't complete and we only add to if we have > a customer who wants to use a database we haven't yet added support for). > This product doesn't use JOOQ but I've mused before that I might if I were > do the intial work today, and if I were ever to rewrite certain parts of the > system I would consider using JOOQ. So to speculate on the case of if the > product did use JOOQ, this would complicate our licensing and we would > probably have to charge an additional fee for customers that wanted to use a > commercial database. I can't say whether we would or wouldn't do that, but > I'm just saying this would be a complication and some level of > discouragement to using JOOQ. > > This is also going to be deciding factor for many people looking for a tool > like this and making JOOQ or QueryDSL choice. > > I understand why you might make this change, and of course there are trade > offs.I'm not intending to criticize your choices, just to give some feedback > on how it may relate to your users' choices. It is with no hard feelings but > with some regret, that I suspect I will be working with JOOQ somewhat less > in the future. > > Best regards, > > Eric > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jOOQ User Group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
