Hi Shorn, Thank you very much for your message.
jOOQ has been dual licensed for almost 5 years now, see: https://blog.jooq.org/2013/10/09/jooq-3-2-offering-commercial-licensing-and-support The choice of splitting the license as - OSS for OSS databases - Commercial for commercial databases ... was a very good choice to get business going at a time when there was almost no pressure to upgrade for existing users. It relied on users having to upgrade "eventually" from the previously all OSS jOOQ 3.1, if only to get access to bug fixes, along with new functionality. The alternative would have been to do what you're suggesting: Create an OSS "low functionality" distribution and a commercial "power user" distribution. A reasonable alternative that would have either required much more R&D effort to produce a viable "power user" distribution offering enough additional features to justify the upgrade. Or, remove existing, free features from the "low functionality" distribution, e.g. stored procedure support, code generation, which would have crippled the "low functionality" distribution and might have resulted in riot and perhaps even in an unfriendly fork. The worst that can happen to any product, creating a lose-lose situation between vendor and community. While I understand your reluctance to invest time to convince relevant people in your organisation to make a purchase now, my point here is: If you can't (or don't want to) make a business case now, you can't (or won't want to) make a business case later, because you're not 100% convinced that jOOQ is the right choice for you and for your company's projects - or you've never done a business case, and don't know yet how easy it really is to convince your managers, once you use the right language. I can definitely help with that, see e.g.: https://www.jooq.org/why-jOOQ.pdf Your perceived "disadvantage" right now (no Oracle support) is just as arbitrary as any other perceived "disadvantage" that a "low functionality" distribution would have. Maybe, for you it would have been better to adopt jOOQ right now, but for all the others that get the "power user" jOOQ for free already today, it would have been worse. Maybe, even for yourself, because the alternative, free "low functionality" distribution would be so meaningless to what you're used now from your PostgreSQL usage, you wouldn't even consider jOOQ. Again, this might definitely be reasonable, but it is very difficult to properly design, and cut at the right places. Not something that can be done easily. Regarding your other questions: Am Fr., 15. Juni 2018 um 12:56 Uhr schrieb <[email protected]>: > I can maybe use some new tech, especially if I can justify it in terms of > implementation speed. I use JOOQ for my personal stuff (on postgres) and I > think it would be a good fit for what I need to do - but I probably won't > be using it because I can't (won't) invest the time trying to convince > folks overseas to buy it. > I don't know your company, but how much effort is it to justify EUR 399 / year compared to the gain you'll get from your increased productivity? Depending on the internal hourly rates that your organisation may have (say EUR 100 / h), the purchase is amortised after 4h of your work, especially because you already know jOOQ, because you're using so many databases and can use jOOQ for it to abstract over it. The alternative would be to use Hibernate (with very limited querying capabilities), or both jOOQ and Hibernate for an optimium. So, from an economic perspective, I don't see the problem, as jOOQ will offer a perfect fit! It always helps to make a total cost of ownership calculation as well: https://twitter.com/lukaseder/status/1007324965136453633 > I think the current license model hurts JOOQ's ability to be used in > "gentle introduction" scenarios that developers often use to evangelise new > tools. > It could be, but it's hard to prove / disprove this without actually doing it. And that's a one way experiment with a lot of risk. > Short term: Would the old open source 3.10 branch work for this purpose? > You wouldn't have Oracle support. I cannot judge whether that would still work for you. Or, do you mean the 3.1 branch that was all open source? Then, yes, it would be a "low functionality" distribution compared to 3.11, and you would immediately want to upgrade once you start using it :-) > Is that why it still gets the odd bug-fix release? > Right now, we don't distinguish between OSS and commercial distributions with respect to bug fix releases. Doing so ("low functionality" distribution) would also result in that distribution to be perceived as "low quality". So, that's definitely not an option. But perhaps, you mean 3.1, not 3.10? > Are pull-requests on the 3.10 branch welcome? > PRs are generally welcome, but usually not practical. The overhead of reviewing a PR is much higher than just doing it ourselves, whatever "it" is. Having said so, no we don't accept PRs on old versions - there's no point in doing that - we have new versions where everything missing from the old version is already implemented. > Or possibly a license tier for "non-production" purposes (this idea's a > bit iffy, I'd predict a lot of uncertainty over the definition of > production)? > What's "non-production"? Certainly, your intranet usage is "production" by all common understandings of the legal term. Ultimately, the story is always the same one. Can you make a business case? Spend some minutes doing it and convince your manager. Can you not make a business case (because jOOQ doesn't add enough value compared to the alternatives for the use-case you have in mind)? Then don't do it and don't use jOOQ. I'm sure you can make a business case for EUR 399 / year, and I'm very happy to help you make one if needed. 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.
