The favourite model I've seen is the main branch is free, licensed MIT or whatever, but if you want release artifacts that are tested - then you pay for it. You can always compile your own.
SQLite doesn’t depend on donations. They have a consortium, sell licenses (it is open source but some companies like the explicit CYA), sell support contracts, sell an aviation-grade test harness, and sell extensions.
Of course there is always the risk it goes out of business like any other company, but it’s not funded like your typical small open source project and doesn’t even allow open contributions (not necessarily a bad thing IMO but it’s just a totally different type of project).
Is there a reason why more OSS projects don't follow this model? It sounds like you are saying that there are clear advantages here that other OSS projects lack.
SQLite is arguably the most widely deployed database in the world. It also has its roots in government/defense contracting so it was built with navigating that kind of red tape in mind.
Most OSS projects simply don’t have that kind of weight or discipline to follow SQLite’s footsteps.
I suspect the government contract roots are what lead to it being placed in the public domain.
It did not have to, they could(and some would argue probably should) have gone the normal copyright with public use license route. But I suspect that because US government code by default is in the public domain(the US government has means other than copyright to protect it's IP) and this code was originally written for a cancelled US government project. That was their default mindset when they wanted to release it.
Note that I am using a sort of editorial they here, I think it was largely the effort of one person.
It is probably telling that with fossil, a supporting project to sqlite, they went the more normal route and released it under copyright with a BSD type license.
I like the idea of public domain(some things belong to us collectively), but it does raise an interesting question if a private individual can place something in the public domain. Are you allowed to give up your rights?
There are business models that work for the extraordinarily popular open source projects (Linux, SQLite, etc.) that don't work for the "well-used piece of infrastructure" projects, even though that category is very important in aggregate
pgbackrest also was part of an organization from what I understood from the post. The organization got acquired. I don't see how sqlite is shielded (or any project really). They could get acquired. They could not have enough customers. They could go the wrong directions and lose customers. They might have a few high profile bugs so that customers lose faith in them.
PGBackRest was sponsored by some specific organizations, but not owned by them, and PGBackRest was not their product.
SQLite is in a whole different league when it comes to funding, corporate support, etc. There are commercial contracts directly tied to its ongoing support and development. As far as I understand SQLite is Hwaci’s bread and butter.
They have more sponsors/clients so a single company changing direction wouldn't kill them. They also sell directly if you want to buy from them. But ultimately the risk still exists.
I interpreted it as the problem being that the technology may end up unsupported. I mean you can also keep using pgbackrest now. It's not like the code is gone.
It didn't go dark, and doesn't seem that critical in general.
General idea still stands, but it is not like this just disappeared and backups will stop working.
The favourite model I've seen is the main branch is free, licensed MIT or whatever, but if you want release artifacts that are tested - then you pay for it. You can always compile your own.
Why does sqlite not suffer from the same risk?
SQLite doesn’t depend on donations. They have a consortium, sell licenses (it is open source but some companies like the explicit CYA), sell support contracts, sell an aviation-grade test harness, and sell extensions.
Of course there is always the risk it goes out of business like any other company, but it’s not funded like your typical small open source project and doesn’t even allow open contributions (not necessarily a bad thing IMO but it’s just a totally different type of project).
They don't make much off this, its known.
Is there a reason why more OSS projects don't follow this model? It sounds like you are saying that there are clear advantages here that other OSS projects lack.
SQLite is arguably the most widely deployed database in the world. It also has its roots in government/defense contracting so it was built with navigating that kind of red tape in mind.
Most OSS projects simply don’t have that kind of weight or discipline to follow SQLite’s footsteps.
I suspect the government contract roots are what lead to it being placed in the public domain.
It did not have to, they could(and some would argue probably should) have gone the normal copyright with public use license route. But I suspect that because US government code by default is in the public domain(the US government has means other than copyright to protect it's IP) and this code was originally written for a cancelled US government project. That was their default mindset when they wanted to release it.
Note that I am using a sort of editorial they here, I think it was largely the effort of one person.
It is probably telling that with fossil, a supporting project to sqlite, they went the more normal route and released it under copyright with a BSD type license.
I like the idea of public domain(some things belong to us collectively), but it does raise an interesting question if a private individual can place something in the public domain. Are you allowed to give up your rights?
There are business models that work for the extraordinarily popular open source projects (Linux, SQLite, etc.) that don't work for the "well-used piece of infrastructure" projects, even though that category is very important in aggregate
Because at that point it's not a 'project', it is a full business.
pgbackrest also was part of an organization from what I understood from the post. The organization got acquired. I don't see how sqlite is shielded (or any project really). They could get acquired. They could not have enough customers. They could go the wrong directions and lose customers. They might have a few high profile bugs so that customers lose faith in them.
PGBackRest was sponsored by some specific organizations, but not owned by them, and PGBackRest was not their product.
SQLite is in a whole different league when it comes to funding, corporate support, etc. There are commercial contracts directly tied to its ongoing support and development. As far as I understand SQLite is Hwaci’s bread and butter.
Its an LLM comment, don't search too deeply for logical consistency
They have more sponsors/clients so a single company changing direction wouldn't kill them. They also sell directly if you want to buy from them. But ultimately the risk still exists.
Because it's a single file you can back up like any other?
I interpreted it as the problem being that the technology may end up unsupported. I mean you can also keep using pgbackrest now. It's not like the code is gone.
Well, yes, I meant that you don't need any 'special' tooling for Sqlite, whereas you do for pg.