Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Commons Clause

redislabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#51

Post by omeid2 »

marcinzm wrote: post #40
mmastrac wrote: post #7

This is the license below. I'm pretty sure this is going to be vague enough to cause problems with a ton of legal departments. They want to be the only ones hosting it and the the only ones you call in to help with it. I get where the Redis folks are coming from, but this is basically a nail in the product and guarantees a fork if they don't turn back. === 8 The Software is provided to you by the Licensor under the L…

>substantially Wow, that's a legal landmine. Is there even a legal standard or consensus for what "substantial" means?

I know it when I see it.[0]

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

Re: Commons Clause

#52

Post by omeid2 »

drenvuk wrote: post #46

If someone could explain, what is the difference between what redis is doing and what nginx does with nginx+plus? I feel like most people use nginx still.

Nginx's license as far as I know does not forbid commercial use of Nginx, nor forbids making money from consulting and support work for Nginx.

Re: Commons Clause

#53

Post by cestith »

_sh wrote: post #45
amelius wrote: post #39

Any software with a restrictive license of any kind will eventually be replaced by software with a more liberal license.

...like all Linux installs will eventually be replaced by BSD? I don't think the big, complex picture of technology licensing can be reduced as flippantly as that.

BSD is more liberal in what it allows other developers to do. GPL is more liberal in what it guarantees the end users of the software, which is the point of the GPL. Either is more liberal than purpose-limiting licenses.

Re: Commons Clause

#54

Post by firebacon »

Wow, so many negative comments here. I for one applaud the move -- a license like this has been needed for a long time.

Slightly (un)related, but I don't understand why in a forum full of software developers it is the consensus that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer)? What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised?

Re: Commons Clause

#55

Post by mindcrime »

This is pretty stupid. If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license. Or if you want to be "Shared Source"[1] use one of the old MS licenses for that. But don't try to put lipstick on a pig and add a veneer of "openness" by shipping something under an Open Source license + terms that make it very explicitly not Open Source.

As much as I like Redis, and even though Core is still under a plain old OSS license, these shenanigans would make me very suspicious of RedisLabs and reluctant to ever do business with them, or use Redis at all. :-(

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

Re: Commons Clause

#56

Post by cookiecaper »

firebacon wrote: post #54

Wow, so many negative comments here. I for one applaud the move -- a license like this has been needed for a long time. Slightly (un)related, but I don't understand why in a forum full of software developers it is the consensus that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer)? What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised?

I agree that we need a good open-source license that limits the ability to resell. The paid support model only goes so far. If a clause like this is actually successful, we may start seeing companies that sell software (rather than support) looking to avail themselves of the benefits of open-source, which would really be a boon for everyone. Someday, I'd like to see a mandatory source deposit to get copyright protection.

Re: Commons Clause

#57

Post by marcinzm »

firebacon wrote: post #54

Wow, so many negative comments here. I for one applaud the move -- a license like this has been needed for a long time. Slightly (un)related, but I don't understand why in a forum full of software developers it is the consensus that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer)? What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised?

My reading of the comments is not that it must be free but that it must be well designed (legally) and without BS.

Saying it OSS + Something when that Something makes the whole thing not OSS is disingenuous and somewhat fishy at a minimum. It's marketing BS designed to make the whole thing seem better than it is. Engineers tend to dislike marketing BS. If it's no longer OSS then that's fine but be fully honest about it.

When that Something is furthermore legally ambiguous and with many open questions that also a valid complaint. Lawyers are expensive and Engineers overall dislike dealing with them. A license that requires and invites lawyers is naturally not going to go over well.

Re: Commons Clause

#58

Post by XiZhao »

Hi folks. Kevin from http://fossa.io here. I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life (https://commonsclause.com/) and led many of the project efforts here.

Happy to answer questions here (or on Twitter @kevinverse).

I wanted to write a blog post to set some context because the real story is a lot less salacious then "Redis just went proprietary", but here's a quick summary:

1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It's only some enterprise modules. The Commons Clause is mostly used to temporarily transition enterprise offering counterparts of OSS projects to source-available.

2/ OSS projects are mainly funded by some proprietary offering or service on top of it. Anything to help the ability to monetize this layer is really good, as the fate of the project is directly tied to this revenue stream. A quick reminder, companies like Redis sink 10s of millions into RnD and are usually contributing over 99% of the code to these repos.

3/ OSS-savvy companies aren't dumb. They understand the optics of any licensing announcement and carefully consider what it will mean. Before we react, we should push ourselves to understand what systems are forcing deeply passionate OSS devs to consider more proprietary options.

Re: Commons Clause

#59

Post by cookiecaper »

mindcrime wrote: post #55

This is pretty stupid. If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license. Or if you want to be "Shared Source"[1] use one of the old MS licenses for that. But don't try to put lipstick on a pig and add a veneer of "openness" by shipping something under an Open Source license + terms that make it very explicitly not Open Source. As much as I like Redis, and e…

Zealots have stolen every commonly used term for open-source software. There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense. Raymond et al missed a big opportunity to create a more commercial-friendly open-source license by deciding to organize around a philosophy so similar to the one promoted by the FSF.

The insistence that code is not open if the authors try to retain the rights that make it profitable may have cost us access to decades of source code. Things should in fact be exactly the opposite: in order to maintain the exclusive right to resell, software authors should be required to register the source code with the Copyright Office.

Re: Commons Clause

#60

Post by star-techate »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #24

Sounds like MBAs and lawyers are swooping in. Abandon ship.

Aye, sounds like it's a good time to develop another memcached replacement.

Tip: if your memcached replacement doesn't trivially allow the rooting of its server, and if you don't also defiantly leave the exploit in while explaining that "you must be --- this tall --- to use redis without it behaving like a malware installation", and that any dirty normies deserve that fate, then you're already better than redis! :)

Post reply on HN