Hi Timm, 2016-01-11 21:34 GMT+01:00 Timm <[email protected]>:
> Hi Lukas, > > >> Did you ever think of making JOOQ freely available for Oracle XE? To me >>> this sounds like a win win, the open source community could use the >>> goodness of JOOQ in the development of oracle targeted projects while JOOQ >>> would sell licenses once people have to deploy them to an oracle production >>> instance. In other words this would be 1 license per deployer, rather than >>> 1 license per developer. >>> >> >> This would be a clear win-lose where "lose" is our part. Having >> free-of-charge commercial versions would mean that many prospects would >> delay any purchasing decision while using Oracle XE for as long as >> possible, or develop against XE and ship to Oracle Enterprise Edition. >> > > I don't think the former would be a common scenario. Who deploys a 1 core > oracle instance for production? If that's someones spec then other open > source database will likely meet the requirements just as well. The reason > Oracle offers this version is exactly because they want people to freely > develop against it while making money of the production instances and > support. I get the latter problem though which is that companies may let > their developers work against XE while then only needing a single JOOQ > license for deployments. In open source it may be less of a problem as > successful projects have more disparate deployments than contributors. > I wish you were right about the first part, but we have seen it all. Users who saved a couple of Euros on our licensing by avoiding their targeted production database during development, then switching last minute and blaming us for all the go live hassle :) But indeed, this isn't very common. Oracle can easily afford free developer editions (OTN license) and the XE (both very cunning moves at a time where all licenses cost millions), because Oracle makes most money off operations, i.e. the companies that run Oracle, not those that integrate Oracle. Unfortunately, the library / developer license business is very different from the server / operations license business. The best of businesses is tooling and SaaS, where no one really cares that much about licensing. > We like our developer workstation licenses. You get value out of jOOQ >> while developing. Your end users don't get any value out of jOOQ, they will >> not be interested in paying for a component of their application. >> >> I'd love to learn more about your product, plans, community, and perhaps >> alternative ideas. >> >> >> http://ecabia.org. The product is just being released under the ASL so > there is no community at this point. The thought of requiring commercial > licenses for contributors is kind of counter conducive to building one > though (especially as academia is a central part of the expected target > community). I guess it could somehow be solved by dual licensing and good > separation but at this point I'd rather save myself this complication. > Apart from that JOOQ fits the requirements of a well designed > simplification of internal code that comes without opinionated framework > baggage much better than any of the alternatives out there. > > I can understand though why you came up with the current licensing scheme, > it makes a lot of good sense for both parties in many situations. > I perfectly understand your point of view. While we do have academic and non-profit commercial customers, I also understand that the effort of managing compliance is significant, especially when the end user application does not also follow commercial licensing interests, which can cover for this effort. In a way, our dual-licensing model is as infectuous as the GPL in that it forces all downstream projects to either: - Not support commercial databases - Be dual-licensed or commercially licensed, which again requires CLAs or transfer of right agreements from contributors This is challenging news for F(L)OSS products as yours, but I suspect that both F(L)OSS and our dual-licensing are tough strategic decisions with little room for compromise towards each other, as our experience has shown previously. One might see this from the bright side - as a new business opportunity for the end user application's vendor. It doesn't *have* to be free. But that is a tough decision to make, and not always the right one, too. In any case, thank you very much for your questions and thoughtful responses. I wish you best of success with ecabia as well. Should you do decide that the value added by jOOQ compared to the cost of compliance works out favourably, I will be very happy to continue discussing possible collaboration models. Best Regards, Lukas -- 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/d/optout.
