Google will never touch Citus because it is AGPL licensed[0], I wouldn't be surprised if the other cloud providers have similar policies.

[0] https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

Citus is owned by Microsoft as well.

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2019/01/24/microsoft-acquir...

Yes, the company, but the plugin is some sort of open source.

Open source stuff are still subject to ownership via copyright.

The license allows you to do many things, but not everything.

The copyright owner on the other had, can do everything.

That’s why many projects nowadays require you to assign copyright to the team before accepting a contribution.

I personally don't consider the AGPL to be a free software nor open source license. The burden it places on operating and using the software sufficiently violates freedom 0 in my view.

Yes infringing on the inherent freedom of corporations to maximize their profit margins is pretty awful

> define open source

denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

> agpl limitations

The AGPL License does not permit sublicensing of the code; that is, you cannot rework or add to the code and then close those changes off to the public.

considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb.

There is nothing hard about forking the repository and then creating a readonly mirror of your working copy on a public github repo.

> > define open source

> denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.

Being honest, I didn't examine the OSD closely when writing the comment, but I still feel AGPL might violate rule #10 for the open source criterion.[0]

However, it's much more clear cut going over to the free software side.[1] Specifically, the explanatory text in the free software philosophy states: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity."

The AGPL requires that you communicate your use of the software, and further forces you to provide access to the source code. For unmodified copies, it might be sufficient to link back to an upstream project. As soon as you modify even a single line, you must now provide your own fork, which will involve setting up some sort of infrastructure. That's assuming that the source code still exists (you might be surprised how often it's lost).

> considering these facts, your opinion is honestly ... pretty dumb.

100% disagree :)

[0] https://opensource.org/osd/ [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Google has Spanner. AWS is working on something similar (project Aurora Xanadu). And both have YugabyteDB in their marketplace. Those are Distributed SQL (Global ACID), not Citus. For DataWarehouse which doesn't need ACID, there are other services.

CockroachDB is available in the Azure/AWS/GCP marketplaces all 3 as managed service or SH option.