Commons Clause • Hacker News Board

Re: Commons Clause

#141

Post by sriku » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:49 AM UTC

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'…

Why would a dual "non commercial" and "commercial" license not solve the problem this is claiming to address. Many OSS projects do this now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for one's work, but without saying how, what are those who adopt the software expected to do?

Let's say the Apache Foundation adopts this for all of its projects. Now what?

Re: Commons Clause

#142

Post by mindcrime » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:50 AM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #131

mindcrime wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. The OSI definition is the "common sense" of Open Source and has been for at least 20 years.

No, the number of sanctimonious lectures that occur every day about how someone is using the term "open-source" incorrectly clearly indicates that the OSI's definition is not common sense. The plain meaning of "open-source" is just what it says: the source code is open, i.e., not closed, i.e., accessible to users. Let the OSI and other zealots harp all they want, this type of subversive hijacking is not cool.

A tiny minority of people who don't understand, or don't accept, the OSI Definition, is not evidence that it isn't the defacto definition. It really doesn't matter how much red-faced foot-stomping and fist-table-smashing people indulge in, it doesn't change the simple fact that the OSI Definition is the standard definition of what it means to be "Open Source". If you're not willing to accept that, that's fine, but realize that that ship sailed 20+ years ago.

As battles go, I'd ask if this is really the hill you want to die on.

Re: Commons Clause

#143

Post by markbnj » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:54 AM UTC

throwaway13337 wrote: post #116

The problem this license is trying to solve is a reasonable one: that cloud providers package up open source products as their own service and capture the majority of the value without adding much themselves. This license might not be the best way around it but the issue should be addressed.

You know this kind of goes right to the heart of the issue. The cloud providers are packaging up open source software into higher level services that have value... just like FB and twitter and everyone else that provides a service that we couldn't have dreamed up 30 years ago. Back in the 80's when I started in this business there were paywalls around every algorithmic implementation of an idea, and before too long there were patents standing on those paywalls defending them. The very idea of open source (to which I was a late convert, so treat me like a reformed smoker here) is the opposite. It unleashed a torrent of innovation _because_ it treated specific algorithmic implementations of ideas as a common resource. To make money you had to come up with something bigger, something more significant to the world than a new key/value store. It's hard to make money off of infrastructure software because the very philosophical foundation of the open source idea is that infrastructure software should be free, so greater ideas can more easily take flight.

Re: Commons Clause

#144

Post by incompatible » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:56 AM UTC

mark_element wrote: post #2

I don't like the naming. "Apache 2.0 with commons clause" is not the right way to describe this licensing paradigm. It is fundamentally no longer Apache 2.0. I appreciate the motivation, but think it would better serve everyone to just make a new "Redis License" that describes the terms.

The name is kind of implying that it's somehow related to Creative Commons. I assume the latter organization actually has nothing to do with it?

Re: Commons Clause

#145

Post by bastawhiz » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:58 AM UTC

justinjlynn wrote: post #111

dcow wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they're concerned about brand dilution via resale of "Redis"-as-a-Service RedisLabs could easily trademark the term Redis and prohibit its use in this way. This mechanism is much the same way Mozilla controls the Firefox trademarks. I do wish they hadn't made their Open Source licence a confusing mess and effectively proprietary for certain modules. That's their right, of course - as copyright holders. However, it…

> This mechanism is much the same way Mozilla controls the Firefox trademarks.

That's not the same situation. Firefox is a standalone product; by nature it can't be reasonably sold as a service. And plenty of for-profit Firefox alternatives _do_ exist with different names.

Take MySQL. AWS sells MySQL through Aurora. It's almost certainly the case that they're using MySQL code under the hood along with a bit of secret sauce. I'd have a hard time believing Amazon has made many meaningful contributions back to the MySQL codebase. Even if they removed "MySQL" from the product naming, (is it even, for Serverless Aurora?) they're still making money hand-over-fist selling the functionality of code they didn't write.

Re: Commons Clause

#146

Post by scj » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 3:00 AM UTC

tomnipotent wrote: post #95

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'…

> "including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software" This single line completely destroys any confidence I have in Commons Clause. I will avoid any project with this license moving forward until this is fixed. It's embarrassing that I'm being told that the time & energy I've invested in deploying this software (redis in particular) will now be rewarded with the ina…

Why would I invest, or encourage clients to invest, in a technology that has a support monopoly?

Re: Commons Clause

#147

Post by vmbrasseur » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 3:01 AM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #139

vmbrasseur wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Kevin. VM Brasseur from https://opensource.org here. It's disappointing to see FOSSA, which claims it exists to assist companies with open source management, publish and encourage use of a clause that very clearly removes projects from the pool of open source alternatives. To do so by using the word "Commons" in the title adds insult to injury and borders on wilful deception, removing software from the commons as…

What efforts has your organization made to prevent software companies from selling "Hosted [open source project] as a Service (with a proprietary twist)" offerings while not contributing back to the OSS core project's development? Edit: Or rather, incentivized contributions, or disincentivized a lack of contribution

Arguably the largest users of Redis—Amazon, Google, and Microsoft—are all among the many sponsors of the Open Source Initiative and each make immense contributions to free and open source software.

Redis Labs is not a sponsor (but is welcome to become one). Despite that, had they come to OSI looking for assistance with this issue we could have helped open discussions between them and their largest users. They did not ask us for help, to the best of my knowledge. Redis Labs' post does not mention what, if any, attempts they made to engage these large users and encourage more contributions before they made the decision to put this software under a proprietary license, and only implies that a lack of contributions was the motivator for the move.

Re: Commons Clause

#148

Post by jen20 » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 3:05 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #130

tomnipotent wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software" This single line completely destroys any confidence I have in Commons Clause. I will avoid any project with this license moving forward until this is fixed. It's embarrassing that I'm being told that the time & energy I've invested in deploying this software (redis in particular) will now be rewarded with the ina…

> It's embarrassing that I'm being told that the time & energy I've invested in deploying this software (redis in particular) will now be rewarded with the inability to commoditize that experience through consulting. No thanks. Can you explain the thought process with regards to why it's okay for you to receive compensation for your efforts, but not the OSS developer who invested significantly more time (nine years,…

Not even dark-ages Microsoft tried to prevent users exchanging knowledge about their products for money ("consulting", or frankly, "employment").

Such a suggestion is preposterous and should kill any company adopting it immediately.

Re: Commons Clause

#149

Post by mattdeboard » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 3:08 AM UTC

justinjlynn wrote: post #138

mattdeboard wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean.. I'm sure they're concerned far more about corporations making money off their unpaid work by hiding it under many layers of abstraction. "Use our stuff for free to do new stuff. But if you're making money off our stuff by selling our stuff's features, then we need to talk licensing first." If this is an accurate summary, I really don't see anything scandalous about it.

Surely this kind of resale of enterprise proprietary software modules is already prohibited by their enterprise licensing scheme. If it's open source, this is precisely what open source is meant to do. It's supposed to be a means to an end to enable new functionality - the fact that it's being sold doesn't matter. The key is that we all gain that ability. If they want to compete in that space with their open source p…

This is absolutely not Redis rent-seeking. In fact, what the Commons Clause is designed to protect against, from my lay-reading of it, is in fact rent-seeking.

As for the rest, the Redis Labs post addresses every point you make pretty definitively. I don't think many of the people who are bothered by this business decision read that post. And if they did, and they comprehended it all, but they still think Redis decided poorly, then I think there's a different convo to have. A broader one about values.

Or... hey, maybe they're just not as cynical as me. Maybe they don't think it's plausible companies are out there right now selling their "Redis with a few bells & whistles" product. Then it stands to reason that you'd see the Commons Clause as some kind of enablement to somehow rent-seek from innocent corporations. I mean hell I'd prefer that. If that's the case then I'd probably share that person's opinion about Commons Clause.

I just don't think that's the case. I believe Redis is making this licensing change in good faith. Not because I know anything about Redis that leads me to believe they're honest people. But because a product team lazily putting together a product at AMZN or GOOG or whatever else and not even thinking to look at the Redis license sounds pretty realistic to me!

Occam's Razor would say this is not an elaborate scheme by Redis to extort Fortune 500 companies.

Re: Commons Clause

#150

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 3:09 AM UTC

jen20 wrote: post #148

toomuchtodo wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's embarrassing that I'm being told that the time & energy I've invested in deploying this software (redis in particular) will now be rewarded with the inability to commoditize that experience through consulting. No thanks. Can you explain the thought process with regards to why it's okay for you to receive compensation for your efforts, but not the OSS developer who invested significantly more time (nine years,…

Not even dark-ages Microsoft tried to prevent users exchanging knowledge about their products for money ("consulting", or frankly, "employment"). Such a suggestion is preposterous and should kill any company adopting it immediately.

At it's core, this is fundamentally about property rights. The owners of the Redis copyright are well within their right to license their property in any way they see fit. It's preposterous to you, but you're not the one who has spent the time creating Redis. It's preposterous to me that they wouldn't have the rights to govern their creation's use.

You could go build your own infrastructure software, of course, that is a valid path forward. But will it be of the same quality at the same (or similar) cost? Most likely not. Will someone provide an alternative to Redis out of disdain for this? Probably. But it will take years, if not longer, to reach feature, stability, and therefore market parity.

And in the interim, cloud providers will pay or have to front the costs to build their own. And that's what this is all about: internalizing the externality of providers getting a free ride.