> And, in practice, it's not that much different for the average user if only the binaries are Apache licensed. When was the last time you needed to open up the Postgres source code and modify something?
Sure, if you're playing a game it probably doesn't make a difference. If I'm building my IT infrastructure on a product, tt makes a huge difference if I get a an open-source-licensed "binary" or access the to source:
- the package they distribute contains no less than 960 different jars. Most of those are the standard apache-project-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-style dependencies. Say I'd like to update log4j because it contains a catastropic vulnerability that datomic decide not to fix. (not that that sort of thing ever happens)
- or say Datomic decides to abandon the product altogether or goes out of business
- or say I'm not happy with their quality of service contract around their DB they support and would like to work with a different company
Many businesses use Microsoft SQL Server or Oracle and don't need access to the source. I'm not saying open source isn't nice, but it is absolutely not a requirement for IT infrastructure.
I'd imagine people rely on many cloud services that are in fact, not open source.
For the vast majority of use cases, a FOSS DBMS and a free-as-in-beer DBMS are indistinguishable. If you're in a category where they're not, then don't use Datomic, but this is still far more than a publicity stunt.
If I use a free-binary-but-no-source product, I’m much more likely to get stuck.
(Of course, as a regretful MySQL user, I am pretty stuck, but largely because MySQL is, in many respects, a terrible product. It does, quite reliably, get security updates at the kind of general maintenance that keeps it working no worse than it ever did.)
My point is that the option to modify the source results in software bein available and community maintained in a way that binary only isn't. Even if I change the source myself just twice a decade.
