Immediately rules out ever using them (though I don't currently have any problems that would benefit from that level of scale currently, have in the past though).
Postgres's license allows this but for me (personally) it leaves a bad taste.
Also it's not really "full-text search for Postgres" it's "full-text search for our hosted version of Postgres" so the title is a little misleading.
Uh, isn’t this becoming the norm everywhere ever since LLMs have been trained on OSS without credit or attribution? Why wouldn’t you want to hide your stuff going forward?
In my view, OSS is only going to move more and more towards one of two models: open core + proprietary functionality (e.g. MongoDB) OR open source + private tests (e.g. SQLite).
They just want to make money. Advancing technology is 2nd or even lower priority for them.
The license allows it but on the flip side it's vendor lock-in predicated on using something open as the base.
Fully proprietary no issue with that, full open, no issue with that, building proprietary on top of open is where the bad taste comes in.
For completeness, it's not them specifically either, the other cloud companies do similar things and I suspect in part the reason they don't open these extensions up is because the others will but then they are doing the same thing themselves.
Those that develop on top of open-source have no obligation to give you their work for free.
You’d be surprised as to the amount of open-source contributions TIN drove towards Postgres, LLVM, and pgrx. And you’d be speechless at the amount of upstream work across all sorts of open-source PlanetScale does. Postgres 18.6, for example, is better for you today, in part, because of TIN. You’re welcome.
I didn't say thank you and don't presume I would, Planetscale acting in their own self interest by improving postgres upstream isn't deserving of thanks, any more than Intel upstreaming a bunch of Linux kernel work is or myriad other examples.
Corporations acting in their self interest isn't worth giving thanks for, neither is the work of the people paid to do work on their behalf.
I don't expect my employer to thank me, I expect them to pay me, I don't expect users of software I was paid to write to thank me because I did it for the money not out of altruism towards those users.
Good luck out there! 2026 is wild times!!
And that is in the context of
>Fully proprietary no issue with that,
I guess I learned something new everyday.
> Those that develop on top of open-source have no obligation to give you their work for free.
This is a pretty narrow view of open source.
Just as a simple example, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are both considered Open Source and, depending on how you hold them, may obligate releasing work to customers essentially for free.
> When one develops using open-source software they have an obligation to follow the licenses.
Obviously what follows from one of those licenses is what you say.
I’m glad we agree!
I remember so well when "Open Source" branding started with Bruce Perens - all the business arguments. When you need a database, someone ELSE'S business decisions (how THEY are going to make money) never end up helping YOU. If you use proprietary extensions and become dependent on them, you inevitably will get BURNED when their business needs diverge from your needs. - They close shop - They refuse to interop with something you need - They demand that you obey their arcane rules - They rug-pull - They get hacked as only they can - They lie to you - They stab you in the back
Agreed!
> They also have a moral obligation to be respectful of the work upon which they’re building.
Respectfully, completely disagree!
Open source is a license, not a moral framework. Your only duty is to abide by the license. If you want to enforce that everything built on top of a particular open source package also be open source, that belongs in the license.
We live in a society. I don’t see any harm in believing we ought to be respectful of the work. That’s all I’m saying. You don’t have to be, but it’s a better world if you are.
> If you want to enforce that everything built on top of a particular open source package also be open source, that belongs in the license.
Yes! I fully agree. The one that creates the thing is the one that gets to choose its license.
Having opened-sourced some bit of work myself, that’s a very difficult decision.
(Disclosure: I work for a company with this business model, in part because I like working on open software)
As for my point, the main issue you are pointing out is the fundamental flaw in capitalism: companies focus on profit instead of technological progress. The two can be correlated but that isn't granted. See enshittification.
There are other economical models that could potentially address the shortcomings of capitalism but a lot of effort is put into discrediting socialist/communist ideas as they threaten the wealth of the wealthiest.