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

101–110 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#101

Post by mindcrime »

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.

Redis core is still Open Source, but anything licensed with this "Commons Clause" abomination is definitely not Open Source. Of course you may choose to disagree, but like it or not, the defacto definition of what it means to be Open Source is the OSI Open Source Definition[1] which says, in part:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

If you distribute software under a license that violates those terms, you may try to call it Open Source, but the fact is, the community at large is going to call you on your bullshit.

Personally I'm not a Free Software zealot who denies that closed source, proprietary software has a place in the world. But I go back to what I said before: if you're going to distribute proprietary software, you should just call it what it is and not try to hide behind a thin veneer of "open" by creating some mishmash of license terms that is "almost, but not quite Open Source".

[1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: Commons Clause

#102

Post by mchahn »

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…

> If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license.

It's not that simple. I'm about to come out with a 3d-printed product that will sell in a similar market to 3d printers. My product is begging to be open-source hardware since anyone with a 3d-printer can create a large part of it and I'd be ecstatic (and richer) if the product developed a community of followers.

However, MakerBot did this and it was a mistake. Clones quickly came out of china at half the price. MakerBot ended the open-source and developed newer products. My outfit is not big enough to do something like this.

So I have considered using a commons-based license. Makers can play with my product without others undercutting my prices.

Re: Commons Clause

#103

Post by colinbartlett »

If this clause comes to Redis Core, will it mean Heroku and others cannot offer me the simple hosted Redis they do today? Thesd cloud providers are exactly what makes Redis attractive to me, dramatically reducing the cost of spinning up new infrastructure for projects.

Re: Commons Clause

#104

Post by mrob »

cookiecaper wrote: post #56
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 protect…

Like it or not, "open source software" already has a well established meaning. If your license includes restrictions on use then you need to call it by an accepted name for that kind of license, e.g. "source available" or "shared source". Anything else is simply deception.

Re: Commons Clause

#105

Post by kazinator »

The "do not redis dis" warning label.

Software with this clause is not usable in the real world.

The clause's strictest interpretation prohibits all business use.

Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.

So for instance, if I run, say, a travel agency or a bakery on software with this moronic clause, that's a product or service whose value derives substantially from the functionality of the software.

There seems to be no difference between this and "free for non-commercial use and redistribution".

Re: Commons Clause

#106

Post by [deleted] »

pmilot wrote: post #41

Doesn't this Commons Clause goes specifically against one of the core principles of Free Software? The whole idea is that a Free Software license should not restrict what you can do with said software. Even the most restrictive FS licenses like GPL will not prevent me from selling consulting services around the product licensed under it. If you combine this clause with a Free Software license, it sounds to me like it…

[deleted]

Re: Commons Clause

#107

Post by mindcrime »

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'…

I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life

Why would you intentionally give birth to such an abomination? This adds no value to the world whatsoever and is just going to confuse people and harm the overall Open Source ecosystem. I'd encourage you to retract this whole idea, stuff it in a hole, "salt and burn it" and try to pretend this whole thing never happened.

If you care about putting pressure on Cloud providers vis-a-vis use of F/OSS, there is always the tried and true "AGPL or commercial license" combination. Why not just use that?

Re: Commons Clause

#108

Post by borland »

colinbartlett wrote: post #103

If this clause comes to Redis Core, will it mean Heroku and others cannot offer me the simple hosted Redis they do today? Thesd cloud providers are exactly what makes Redis attractive to me, dramatically reducing the cost of spinning up new infrastructure for projects.

If you read the article, it implies that people like Heroku and others offering hosted Redis is EXACTLY the kind of thing they are trying to prevent with this clause.

To quote: "today’s cloud providers have repeatedly violated this ethos by taking advantage of successful open source projects and repackaging them into competitive, proprietary service offerings. Cloud providers contribute very little (if anything) to those open source projects. Instead, they use their monopolistic nature to derive hundreds of millions dollars in revenues from them. Already, this behavior has damaged open source communities and put some of the companies that support them out of business."

Re: Commons Clause

#109

Post by mindcrime »

sciurus wrote: post #75
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'…

Who else can we expect to see adopting the Commons Clause?

Pretty much either "nobody" or "the set of companies who want their projects forked and promoted by somebody else".

Re: Commons Clause

#110

Post by kodablah »

> However, today’s cloud providers have repeatedly violated this ethos by taking advantage of successful open source projects and repackaging them into competitive, proprietary service offerings.

Well, if that's the way you see it, then sure, go ahead and limit the software's use. But there are a lot of people, like myself on my OSS stuff, that do not feel like they're being taken advantage of when their software is used this way, otherwise I wouldn't put it out there. Granted I also disagree in many cases with copy left licenses. I don't want to engage in that debate here, but suffice to say some people want to control what you do once they transfer stuff to you and some don't. You see it a lot in non software these days too. We need a new term called "restrictionless software" or something similar so those of us with small companies don't need lawyers to share and share alike when each version of this type of clause comes out.

In the meantime, building a company out of charitable software work is probably hard, so I'm sure others' revenues off your stuff feels wrong. And it's hard to maintain a sense of freedom but still add pay-for features, so I sympathize with companies going this route.

Post reply on HN