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

81–90 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#81

Post by tschellenbach »

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?

Yes it's crazy, most of the people commenting here don't contribute to open source and get paid a comfy salary because someone higher up actually charges for the things they work on. I don't know why there is such a stigma around monetizing the things you work on. These types of comments ignore the reality that you need to monetize somehow. Almost every large open source project has a monetization model.

Re: Commons Clause

#82

Post by h4b4n3r0 »

star-techate wrote: post #60
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! :)

Ain’t nothing wrong with memcached itself.

Re: Commons Clause

#83

Post by draw_down »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #48
amelius wrote: post #39

Any 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?

I’m with you, but redis before this license can just be forked. Doesn’t require a clean-room implementation or anything like that.

Re: Commons Clause

#84

Post by DannyBee »

tschellenbach wrote: post #73
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…

I have no affiliation with Redis, it's clearly still open source, it's just not free for some of their users.

It's clearly not open source. It meets no definition of open source that has ever existed. Even other things like the debian free software guidelines (which date back to 1997. Seee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...) would not consider this free

It's also clear the goal is to "seem" open source by reusing the license names of open source licenses.

Re: Commons Clause

#85

Post by humbleMouse »

This is a shame to apache's good name. Apache should never be mentioned in the name of a software version that isn't true opensource...

If you want to leverage apache and charge for it go ahead. Be a redhat or confluent, go nuts. Don't do this kind of bs.

Re: Commons Clause

#86

Post by toomuchtodo »

zaphar wrote: post #78
toomuchtodo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems to me, in the long run, it'd be cheaper to pay Redis for whatever they offer instead of attempting to craft your own solution, maintain it, and find others who also will maintain it. Developer happiness and exposure doesn't pay the rent.

Re: Commons Clause

#87

Post by humbleMouse »

komali2 wrote: post #70
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?

Consulting around open source software seems to my industry-new experience how people tend to make a living around open source software. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how the core Linux folks make money? Or the organization running node?

Try anyone who works at a big company saving money by replacing vendor tools with custom open source solutions. There are a million ways to monetize open source, even as an individual.

Re: Commons Clause

#88

Post by dcow »

geofft wrote: post #64

> but all other users will be unaffected by this change. This is untrue for the simple reason that you will be unable to apt-get install this software directly from Linux distros with a policy of including only FOSS. Or, more generally - the value of FOSS is in the opportunities for public collaboration and redistribution. If you think you're doing the vast majority of the development work anyway and you want people…

They mention later on that redis core will always remain BSD. I share your sentiment, though it seems like this is an effort to not totally isolate the project. Their goal appears to be clamping down on straight up resale of integration components & modules.

Re: Commons Clause

#89

Post by derefr »

There's a lot of fuss in these here comments about the future of Redis itself.

From the post (emphasis mine):

> Consequently, we decided to add Commons Clause to certain components of open source Redis. Cloud providers will no longer be able to use these components as part of their Redis-as-a-Service offerings, but all other users will be unaffected by this change.

> The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.”

Isn't this, then, just another open-core play? The Redis you know and love, if you're most people (Redis core) isn't being relicensed. The Redis features ("certain modules") that these SaaS providers created themselves to provide on their platforms as value-adds, are being relicensed to be less BSD-y and more Microsoft shared-source-y ("open to contribution, pay to use", which is... wacky.)

Fundamentally, those modules were these companies' property to do with as they wished. Likely, they had few-if-any outside FOSS contributors (which is how they could get away with something like this in the first place.) They aren't some cultural touchstone of the community. They're proprietary vendor add-ons that happened to be FOSS-licensed up until now.

If these companies had started with these modules being entirely closed-source (like with, say, Nginx's "Nginx Plus" modules), nobody would be batting an eyelash right now.

Re: Commons Clause

#90

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

XiZhao wrote: post #58

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'…

Wow, I remember seeing this when you first started it and I spoke out against it then. I should have spoken more loudly, because I assumed no sane maintainer would have taken you seriously.

Software which uses this model is not open source, plain and simple. This is a disgrace on our community and I am sorely disappointed in you and in Redis.

What pushes OSS devs to cease being OSS devs is an important problem to solve, but one I think we were making great progress on. "Solving" it with the destruction of open source is a despicable thing.

The commons "clause" isn't a clause at all, it's a rape of an otherwise good license. I fear you've already let it into your head that your cause is a noble one and that you'll be unwilling to undo the damage you've done, but if you have a conscience I urge you to shut down this bastardization of open source.

Post reply on HN