Hacker News Reader

Comment by alberth | Hacker News Reader

Off-topic (and hope the conversation doesn't digress too much): when is it ok for someone to monetize an open source project and when is it not?

I've read over the years how people get super upset at Amazon for taking an open source project, (sometimes) adding some code to it and then host and monetize it. The argument being that Amazon is monetizing on the backs of countless open source developers. Hence why the Common Clause has been added to a number of open source projects to prevent this from happening.

Supabase seems to be loved by HN (haven't tried it yet but looks interesting).

Isn't Supabase just a wrapper around the open source Postgres database (which is BSD licensed)?

View on HN

Supabase developer here. "Wrapper" is an oversimplification, but essentially, we provide additional value to the existing OSS offerings (i.e. PostgreSQL, GoTrue, Kong, Postgrest) by adding libraries and server configurations that tie everything together and make it much easier to develop an application. That being said, you're free to self-host Supabase and get all this value (and continued value and support) for free. We only "monetize" it by offering a hosted version as an option for people who would rather not spend time managing servers and other infrastructure.

In addition, the value we add to these existing tools is turned back to the community and can be used however people see fit.

Thanks burggraf.

Hope my question didn't come off the wrong way, and really appreciate your reply.

Another question, so does Supabase open source 100% of the added features/functionality? Or are some features/functionality gated behind a paid license?

No problem -- it's a very valid question and deserves to be clear to everyone.

Supabase open-sources everything and nothing is behind a paid license, except for any stuff related to us providing the hosted stuff. For instance, our internal software we created for billing customers who host with is not necessarily open-source.

One can do whatever the license allows. It is not my fault if I monetize someone else's code that is MIT licensed. People should read and understand licenses before slapping one on their open source project.

I've been using the MIT license for a decade. It's actually free software, not "free but if you fail to follow my manifesto I'll sue you". It's more practical since it can be used for anything, and it's better for the community since people can use it and contribute without risking legal liability.

There is a difference between Amazon and Supabase:

- Supabase open source's their backend service product which uses Postgres. Anyone could technically fork their project and self-host.

- Amazon has a closed source backend service product which uses <open-source-database>.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com