This seems aimed at cloud hosting provider that currently get the tech for free. Makes sense in a way.
Commons Clause
71–80 of 496 posts
Re: Commons Clause
#72Wow, 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?
First question: Why has it been needed a long time?
On you latter question: They don't feel that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer). You are simply conflating the free (as in speech) with the free (as in beer) implicitly with no justification.
If you are going to make money from a software development project, you need a business plan. You need a way to make money. It is absolutely true that I won't pay money for software that does not have a free software license. I've lived in that world before as a programmer. It sucks!
Does that mean that I won't pay money for free software? No, it really doesn't. In fact many of the companies I have worked for in the past have spent a lot of money for free software. One company I worked for spent about $5 million dollars a year for GCC and associated tool chains (and that was in the 90's!)
But the problem is that a lot of companies frankly have extremely poor business plans. Something on the order of:
Write software
???
Profit
What that means is that "Write software --> ??? --> Profit" is just not a viable business plan. I have absolutely no problem with this. In fact, I'm happy about this. If you want to make money, you have to offer a service other than copying bits. You can charge me for writing the software. You can charge me for a service associated with the software. You can make money in other ways and enter into a kind of consortium for constructing the software so that all parties have reduced cost. I've personally even paid money for free (as in freedom) software simply because it was worth the money to make sure the authors were able to live (Note: this is not a viable business plan, but sometimes it still happens).
BTW, currently the company that pays me makes money by selling Golf holidays (and spa holidays, and lately horse racing, and bicycling holidays). Most programmers work for companies like that.
Re: Commons Clause
#73This 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…
I have no affiliation with Redis, it's clearly still open source, it's just not free for some of their users.
Re: Commons Clause
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an in-memory key-value store. Its primary function is to let transient processes not have to hit the disk to update state. Go ahead and write one this weekend, in that shiny new language that you're interested in, and then finish it up by adjusting the redis bindings of a popular CMS to work with your daemon as well.
If it's so easy, I'm sure we'll see replacements of equal quality. The initial Redis release was in 2009. I would think it's unlikely you're going to reach the same feature and stability parity orders of magnitude faster that Redis did.
Certainly, it'll be a lot easier if you pick your redis-user in advance and look what its actual requirements are, so that you can focus on a solid implementation of those features.
Re: Commons Clause
#75Hi 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'…
Who else can we expect to see adopting the Commons Clause?
Re: Commons Clause
#76Redis is no longer free and open source software with this move. It is now proprietary software.
While the tone of the entire post is unsettling, it does say that the core server is still BSD licensed.
For how long is the question to me, per the blog post:
>Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed.
Doesn't seem like having Redis core contain enough useful functionality and staying BSD lines up with their vision.
Re: Commons Clause
#77Wow, 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?
>What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised?
The cool app I made with the infrastructure?
Re: Commons Clause
#78Any software with a restrictive license of any kind will eventually be replaced by software with a more liberal license.
Who would waste thousands of man hours to write a Redis replacement for free, only to have it taken by large tech companies to rake in revenue through managed offerings?
The person who needs a Redis replacement but isn't interested in selling something that isn't core to their business and wants some assistance in the development from other people who are like minded.
They may or may not be a fool but their are more returns than just licensing fees for such a project prestige and it's effect on hiring for a company. Developer happiness. Other similar intangibles.
Re: Commons Clause
#79This 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…
I have no affiliation with Redis, it's clearly still open source, it's just not free for some of their users.
If something is not free, it is not open source. The difference between free software and open source is one of ideology and philosophy. In practice, they're the same.
Re: Commons Clause
#80Any software with a restrictive license of any kind will eventually be replaced by software with a more liberal license.
Who would waste thousands of man hours to write a Redis replacement for free, only to have it taken by large tech companies to rake in revenue through managed offerings?
Here’s two I found with a simple search of github.
https://github.com/yinqiwen/ardb https://github.com/yongman/tidis
No idea if they’re any good. Ardb looks interesting.