August 16th, 2024

Whither CockroachDB?

CockroachDB is moving to a proprietary licensing model in November 2024, prompting Oxide to self-support on version 22.1, which will convert to Apache 2.0 by May 2025.

Read original articleLink Icon
Whither CockroachDB?

CockroachDB, initially chosen by Oxide for its control plane database, is transitioning to a proprietary licensing model, which raises concerns for Oxide. The change, announced by Cockroach Labs, will take effect on November 18, 2024, when the current BSL code will be relicensed as proprietary, requiring a license for use. This new licensing structure includes additional restrictions such as enforced telemetry and mandatory license keys. Oxide's evaluation of alternatives reveals that replacing CockroachDB is impractical in the short term due to the significant work involved and the lack of clear replacements. The option of using a commercially licensed version is also unfeasible due to licensing encumbrances. A source-available version with revenue and telemetry requirements is unacceptable for Oxide. The most viable path forward appears to be self-supporting on CockroachDB version 22.1, which will convert to Apache 2.0 by May 2025. Oxide plans to remain on this version and potentially upgrade to 22.2, while integrating patches into a repository for internal use. They are cautious about adopting any community forks, prioritizing risk management regarding their database needs.

- CockroachDB is shifting to a proprietary licensing model, effective November 2024.

- Oxide finds replacing CockroachDB impractical due to significant work and lack of alternatives.

- Commercially licensed options are not viable for Oxide due to licensing restrictions.

- Oxide plans to self-support on CockroachDB version 22.1, converting to Apache 2.0 by May 2025.

- The company will integrate patches into a repository for internal use, remaining risk-averse.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @SamInTheShell - 3 months
Some of the raft failure modes for CockroachDB suck to recover from. In testing I've had better results with Yugabyte. If licensing is such a big deal though, CockroachDB loses over Dgraph and Yugabyte.

I doubt anyone will really do anything worth-while in maintaining CockroachDB when it's latest version eventually does falls into Apache licensing.

By @mgerdts - 3 months
The related podcast episode has an extended discussion of past experience pushing postgres beyond its original design. Despite working with Bryan and dap at Joyent post Samsung acquisition, I had no idea about much of this.

https://overcast.fm/+AA4jBHynCD8

By @eYrKEC2 - 3 months
@bcantril,

Although it sounds like migrating to another DB is not a good choice for Oxide _today_, why didn't you start with yugabyte db? If you were starting from scratch today, which one would you choose for your situation?

By @h_tbob - 3 months
I don’t mind paying for software but… for a business with 10mm annual revenue the idea is that for them it’s cheaper to use the best database vs hire an employee to manage a worse one.

So for us solo devs it seems nightmarish. But I think at the enterprise level they say: “hire 2 employees to manage X or buy cockroach”. So they buy if software cheaper.

That’s why it’s so expensive I think.

Note: never worked in corporate so I don’t know.