Commercial Section / Addons

1

Hello @all,

i just look around at the urbackup homepage and i noticed a, maybe new, commercial section. Will be there more commerical addons in urbackup in future? Are there plans to commercialise urbackup complete in future?

Greetings
Marco

2

Ok… Now that it’s clear where urbackup will go it’s time to look for something new that will stay open source…

3

Only the CBT on windows client functionnality is concerned … We can still make backups without this add-on but it will be longest (the same as now in fact) than with CBT.
I think this is because fact its requires a special Windows filter driver which is not free of charge on Micro$oft side (certified driver).
UrBackup CBT addon stay very affordable compared to classical commercial products IMHO

@Uroni
Do you confirmed that the regular version of UrBackup will stay free of charge and OpenSource ?
Do you plan to release some trial CBT licenses (eg 30 days / 1 client) to see the improvement and decide if we should buy some CBT licences ?

Regards,

4

First of, since it is Open Source one can never remove any existing features. Those can simply be put back in a fork (this kind of happened to Bacula). So that will stay free of charge, naturally.

With regards to future features the goal is to have most people using the Open Source version and a commercial alternative for those with very special needs.

Let me give you an example where this is very clear cut: Suppose you have an application which (for whatever reason) uses a SAP HANA database and you want to back that up with UrBackup. Getting the API documentation for SAP HANA costs 20,000€ ( http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-34483 ). The only way to finance that is to sell the SAP HANA client for say 1000€ per client (not that I am going to do that – I am only using that as an example), otherwise UrBackup will never support that.

Do note that UrBackup 2.0.x already has support for MySQL/MariaDB and PostgreSQL as a counter example and those are the databases most people will be using.

The Change block tracking driver for Windows is also relatively clear cut. Since Windows 10 you need an EV code certificate from the big three security companies in order to have the driver certified by Microsoft. To get the EV code certificate you need to be a registered company. With Windows Server 2016 it’ll have to go through the WHQL certification process adding further headaches.

5

So you cannot use that feature without a code certificate? Or it will just complain if you try to do so? How much are those certificates and certifications?

6

Also, @uroni, how can this be congruent with the GPL v3 license of UrBackup 2.0.x?

7

it can john.
as long as the driver it self will stay open source then it’s ok…
the only thing uroni charges for is the certification if i understood that correct

8

I guess this is strategy similar to the RedHat scenario:
Open Source free version and a commercial enterprise version?

9

I do love that this is an open source project and recognize and commend @uroni for doing this in his spare time.

That being said, I think it is great that he is able to implement advanced features such as CBT, particularly as an addon/plugin. This way, the core of the program stays open source and free for ordinary chaps, and if anyone requires these paid plugins, they are available to them, further enhancing the product.

I also understand that being able to implement these features can actually cost him money (as he outlines above), so it is only fair that he attempt to recoup that cost from the users that would actually use it.

Many well made programs follow this similar licensing model (Nero Burning ROM comes to mind), and I have no qualms about the future of UrBackup so long as the core product remains as it is - open source and available for free.

10

That’s all well and good, but I have yet to see the source of the driver.

Not that I care really, I am just anti-GPLv3. It is too restrictive and prevents stuff like this from happening. Even though, quite frankly, I see it as a legitimate way for @uroni to make money from this open source endeavor. But GPLv3 is a cancer and he never should have made that choice if this is the avenue he wanted to go down. I would much rather see everyone reject GPLv3, for what it is worth.

11

I was/am quietly following and using this development and first of all thanks for @uroni’s effort we have a very unique package.

Seriously I agree that GPL v3 is really bad. I have been following/using quite a few open source packages. Unfortunately most of them (if not all ) discontinued at certain point simply because without financial support, it is almost impossible for the developer to keep working on the code. The fact is with time the code base became bigger and bigger and it requires much more time and effort. Simply relying on a single ( or several) developer(s) is not practically feasible (developing, debugging and servicing).
With all above said, open source is good spirit but when the code base reach certain size sustainable financial support is a MUST to keep the effort moving ahead. Successful open source projects (such as Apache) all have strong financial support. This is the essential component for a successful open source project. I understand the concern guys left in this discussion. But there are three things we need to consider:

  1. the code is big now (roughly hits the limit of a single developer).
  2. additional cost was incurred (such as the charge from the driver certificate)
  3. it will take the developer more and more time (he has only 24 hours a day like you and I) to take the development to the future. Unless he has a very rich family and he does not need to work, it will soon reach a point he will suffer between the allocation of time on work and this development.

Therefore I support some kind commercialization and I hope that @uroni will work out a simple and creative solution on this. It is not necessarily GPL v3, which is something that will kill any sizable open source project.

2 Likes