Update schema versioning tools

[federico-razzoli]

• Update Flyway URL
• Add ByteBase

[dveeden]

https://github.com/bytebase/bytebase/blob/main/LICENSE says this is under the "MIT Expat" license (except for enterprise), so that looks ok to me.

[shlomi-noach]

Thank you @dveeden -- I honeslty don't dig the LICENSE.enterprise part. It says:

This software and associated documentation files (the "Software") may only be
used in production, if you (and any entity that you represent) have agreed to,
and are in compliance with, the Bytebase Terms of Service, available
at https://bytebase.com/terms (the “Enterprise Terms”), or other

which in turn requires as to agree to https://bytebase.com/terms. I am not a lawyer and cannot verify that these terms comply with any identifyable OSS license.

[shlomi-noach]

The "enterprise" license applies to:

#####################################################################################
##                                                                                 ##
##  NOTE: The following license applies to following code:                         ##
##  1. backend/enterprise/ and its subdirectories                                  ##
##  2. frontend/src/enterprise/ and its directories                                ##
##  3. frontend/src/views/sql-editor and its directories                           ##
##  4. Any code controlling feature, permission, role and plan enablement          ##
##                                                                                 ##
#####################################################################################

I don't know what to make of it. Are these directories important? Not important? Will I as a user be using those directories?

[shlomi-noach]

Not sure yet about the license, but I prefer replacing the URL with the GitHub project page, seeing that the product URL is more on the marketing side.

Side note: we should probably do the same for many other projects here.

Suggested change

	- [ByteBase](https://www.bytebase.com/) - Validate and version schema changes (amongst other things)
	- [ByteBase](https://github.com/bytebase/bytebase) - Validate and version schema changes (amongst other things)

[dveeden]

@federico-razzoli could you apply this suggestion or do you have any objections?

[shlomi-noach]

👍

[dveeden]

Best to use a GitHub link for Flyway. This is done in #129 as well.

[federico-razzoli]

ByteBase has an Enterprise and an open edition. Yes, it's fine to link the GitHub repo (both if you do it for this case only or for all projects).

[shlomi-noach]

ByteBase has an Enterprise and an open edition.

Thanks @federico-razzoli ! But it's still unclear to me. It's not dual licensed. The "edition" is the use of specific folders, but I do not understand what use cases do and what use cases do not fall under using those specific folders. It's really confusing and not clarified in the docs/manual. Which puts the burden on us as reviewers to understand what they mean...

[federico-razzoli]

Let's tag @tianzhou for a clarification.

[tianzhou]

@shlomi-noach @federico-razzoli it's fair to link the github repo.

The enterprise "edition" is for gating the license related logic. The Enterprise license explicitly disallows to modify the licensing code. (e.g. func isEnterprise() { return true };

[shlomi-noach]

@tianzhou thank you; I confess I do not fully understand. Is the nature of the enterprise license to control the change of the license?

How about all the files under specified directories, such as frontend/src/views/sql-editor ?

[tianzhou]

Is the nature of the enterprise license to control the change of the license?

Right, it's for gating the enterprise related features.

How about all the files under specified directories, such as frontend/src/views/sql-editor ?

It's an oversight. We just removed this bytebase/bytebase#12198

@shlomi-noach

[shlomi-noach]

Thank you @tianzhou. Any other reviewers who have an opinion? I'm still not a lawyer and still cannot firmly conclude that the terms of this proposed code comply with OSS licensing.

[federico-razzoli]

@shlomi-noach None of the people who commented until now is a lawyer, so I think that the decision can only be a "political" one. I proposed the project because - despite the uncommon practice you highlighted - it seems to me open core, just like MySQL. In case it isn't for some reason, that would be a bug, I think. But for such a corner case, only you can decide to approve or reject, imho.

[dveeden]

My vote would be to include this. I think the intention of the license is ok. This is not a strong vote.

However I would also like to suggest Bytebase to consider splitting the enterprise code into a separate repo or to implement some other solution that would make this more clear an avoid any future issues.

[dveeden]

Best to use a GitHub link for Flyway. This is done in #129 as well.

[dveeden]

@federico-razzoli could you apply this suggestion or do you have any objections?