Hello Darren, Thank you very much for your openness. I'm very sorry to hear how bad our new licensing strategy has made you feel. As mentioned before, I have long contemplated many alternatives, and even if I found this one to be the most promising, I knew that it will be very disappointing to many users who believe in Open Source as much as you do. I hadn't been looking forward to that aspect of moving forward at all.
Rest assured, though, that I'm very open to discussion and creative solutions. I believe that there is room for win-win situations also with non-commercial Open Source stakeholders such as Apache CloudStack. What if jOOQ followed suit with the popular YourKit Profiler's licensing strategy (see http://www.yourkit.com/purchase/index.jsp) and allowed Apache CloudStack and other non-commercial OSS projects to include (but not redistribute) "jOOQ Enterprise" in return for a backlink? By "not redistributing", I mean that the jOOQ API may only be used by CloudStack internally, and must not be made available to CloudStack consumers. I am aware of the Apache Foundation's generally rather strict views on what is acceptable for inclusion, but I think that it might be worth to pitch such an idea to your community. What do you think? > So while jooq is awesome, querydsl is probably acceptable. That is the best comparison I've heard so far. :-) May I cite this? Best regards, Lukas 2013/10/11 <[email protected]> > So here's my dilemma now. I'm a committer on Apache CloudStack. ACS > currently has a custom data access framework that is somewhat limiting. > I've been working on the technical feasibility of moving to an off the > shelf open source framework for database access. After much analysis I > came to the conclusion that hands down jooq was the right framework. I was > just working through some technical issues on how to integrate jooq and > then I was going to put this up for discussion on the mailing list. Now > with this license announcement, I'm not sure if I should do that anymore. > > It's not a legal issue I'm worried about, when people see this style of > commercial licensing they get turned off by it and apache is full of a > bunch of open source enthusiasts. So while jooq is awesome, querydsl is > probably acceptable. So I think I'm going to have to look further at > querydsl because I'm not too sure jooq will be accepted by the community > anymore. > > As I said before, sad day for me.... > > Darren > > -- > 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.
