$5k per year is almost free comparing to average single coder compensation.
It's essentially a black box now, you have no auditing possibility, no way to extend it, no guarantee you can pick up the pieces is cognitect/rich goes away. You basically sign a check, and hope for the better.
Note: I too wish Datomic was OSS, just disagree that price isn't the issue. It is.
This was a common model before FOSS took off and it is still quite common in enterprise products.
If company X goes out of business you get the latest source version you paid for.
Having said this, I don't know if Cognitec has such kind of contracts.
Does anyone have any advice how to approach this? Example contracts, good experiences with escrow services maybe? Or bad experiences of course.
Datomic has perpetual free licenses so if they go bankrupt, you just keep the software you already have.
If you had an on-prem setup or a hosted white label solution, then it'd be easier to license.
I do feel that in a really well-run operation, your build, deploy, and operation should be so automated that that's just another set of repositories to put in escrow. One way to look at it is that escrow is just another kind of disaster recovery; if you have safe copies of everything you would need to restore your operations if you lost all your current servers, then it's easy to put those in escrow too.
It's not really effective for saving a cloud hosting. A platform like that is not easily redeployable.
True, but...
> This was a common model before FOSS took off and it is still quite common in enterprise products.
No, it wasn't and it's not. “Shared source” for paying customers was common before Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) took off (“Free” doesn't modify “Open Source”, they are essentially synonyms that identify the same license features but which are preferred by different ideological factions that prefer those features for different reasons.) Shared source does include access to the source, and it may include some rights to create derivatives (usually with no or restricted distribution rights), but it is not open source.
Also no one ever referred to it as "Shared Source" in the 80's.
Just to dig out one such product, here is the brochure of Turbo Pascal 5.5 from 1989.
https://archive.org/stream/bitsavers_borlandtur5.5Brochure19...
" Turbo Pascal 5.5 Runtime Library Source
Modify the runtime library source code or use it as it is. You get the assembly language and Pascal source code to the System, Dos, Crt, Printer and Turbo3 units. It comes with a batch file to help with recompiling and building TURBO.TPL."
For me, for my work, that was open enough.
It's no religion; the terms have well-established meanings.
> What matters is having access to the code, whatever form it might be.
The legal permissions you have to make use of the code very much matter, too. And those vary considerably among non-Open Source, source available/shared source license arrangements.