dbt Fusion: A Restrictive Rewrite of dbt Core

This title was summarized by AI from the post below.
View profile for Tobias (Toby) Mao

Co-Founder and CTO @ Tobiko Data

dbt Labs announcement of #dbt (con)Fusion has a lot of things that we as a data community need to discuss. dbt Fusion is a complete rewrite of dbt Core in Rust. Unlike dbt Core, which is completely free and open source under Apache 2.0, dbt Fusion is not open source as it is under the more restrictive Elastic 2.0 license. Although Fusion is free to use, it restricts its usage in a hosted or managed offering to 3rd parties. You may think this is fine, but there are far-reaching implications. Open source is amazing because it incentivizes individuals and companies to invest in it without risk. A company can go all in on open source because no matter what the direction of the core maintainers is, it can be forked and used for whatever reason you want. A non-permissive license like Elastic will disincentivize companies from investing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing ethically wrong about dbt Labs' decision. It may even be in their best financial interest to do so. However, I want to analyze what led to this situation and what it might mean for the future of dbt Core. What I believe this means is that dbt's strategy is to put dbt Core in "maintenance mode" to focus on Fusion and their other proprietary offerings. The wording of the announcement was very carefully selected to be vague. In particular, when referring to dbt Core support, it was only highlighted that bug fixes, security patches, and compatibility would be ongoing. According to their dbt Core roadmap, they've separated out the dbt language from the runtime. There's a specific callout that Fusion and Core will inevitably diverge because Fusion has additional capabilities that cannot be added to Core. To me, it makes sense that this is the chance for dbt Labs to invest in more restrictive and profitable software while slowly deprecating what not only made them great but is also their biggest challenge to financial growth. Ultimately, resources are finite, and companies must prioritize what makes sense for the business. Given dbt Core's foundational importance to modern data infrastructure, Analytics Engineers deserve a free, open, and continually evolving transformation platform. Otherwise, your career will be dangerously dependent on the decisions of a single company. To safeguard the continuing innovation and development of the transformation space, it may be time to start a discussion about an open standard for defining data transformations.

  • No alternative text description for this image
Gregory Power

Data Professional and Open Source Contributor

5mo

I was wondering what your opinion was going to be on this. One thing that worries me about some open source software, is when there’s only one company behind an open source project and there aren’t organizational safeguards. In the past few years we’ve seen projects change their tune when VC’s come knocking. I think the folks at DuckDB Labs and their creation of the DuckDB Foundation to protect the IP is a model to follow.

Ash Smith

Building Data Teams and Platforms at South32

5mo

what’s this mean for databricks and the like using dbt core as part of their orchestration task types ? no more dbt fusion task tasks :(

Oleg Agapov

Senior Analytics Engineer @Hiive

5mo

One other option is acquisition. Say if Snowflake acquires dbt, there is no sense in license-gating anymore, because dbt drives money to SF. Just saying

Dmitry Pochuev

Data Platform Architect

5mo

I think it is fair for dbtLabs as a company and key contributor of dbt-core. There was unofficial alignment with community: you can contribute it - you can use it. As a side effect, it created a lot of offerings from other companies (data orchestrators, dataops platforms, etc.) that with zero contributing into project just utilized it and promoted a running of dbt-core as a key feature of their own commercial solutions. Now they can’t do it with fusion.

Matthew Mullins

Technology Leader | Occasional Philosopher

5mo

Obviously not all open source is equivalent, but when an open source project is in the hands of a singe company and not in a foundation, users always run the risk of a license change. They also have no hand in the project governance because it’s someone else’s product.

Andrew Madson

Data + AI Leader⚡️O’Reilly Author⚡️Keynote Speaker⚡️Graduate Professor⚡️Chief Selfie Officer🤳

5mo

Whoa! I've seen a ton of commentary on the internet, but this is really good! There is a lot of concern about what is going to happen with Core in the future.

Danilo Drobac

💰 Turn Your Data into Cash in 60 Days or Less | ⚡Zero Hires. Zero Overhead. Zero Risk.

5mo

"while slowly deprecating what not only made them great but is also their biggest challenge to financial growth" I think that's everything said in one sentence. A company built dbt. That company got investment. Now it needs to chase $. It's annoying but it makes complete sense and it's hard to be angry about it. My question to you is, given that SQLMesh (built by Tobiko) is looking like a saviour at this point. What happens in 5 years when potentially the same story unfolds? Will we not see the same issues and struggles with financials and a pivot in how the licensing is going to work?

See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories