Hacker News Reader

AGPL3, no thanks.

Curious if there are runtime downsides to having so many extensions installed

These extensions are pre-packed and included in the local yum repo, which can be enabled by configuration. Only core extentensions are installed by default, which are: pg_repack, wal2json, postgis33, timescaledb, citus, pgvector. And the only extension activated (`CREATE EXTENSION`) by default is pg_repack.

The AGPLv3 is infected by the Grafana, MinIO and citus.

https://github.com/Vonng/pigsty/blob/master/docs/PGSQL-EXTEN...

Personally, I like the AGPL. It means that when a place uses / extends the code, it's pretty likely they're intending on contributing back.

It's the places that go "Ewwww... AGPLv3!" that you have to wonder about.

Until AGPL3 is tested on court I'll keep avoiding it for my day job. While I appreciate the idea, I'd rather not risk my livelihood.

My employers do contribute (however modestly) to FOSS, though typically MIT licensed.

What test do you want to see in court? Is it due to concern of the virality of the license infecting software that uses it? Or due to concern that the license doesn't actually protect what it claims to and would be found unenforceable by the court?

Whether or not AGPL3 software will virally infect an entire service of which it constitutes one part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com