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

171–180 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#171

Post by zaroth »

sciurus wrote: post #67
phpnode wrote: post #3

Yikes, the wording around consulting seems especially worrisome - are they effectively prohibiting third parties from providing redis technical support? This move will likely kill the project as it is today.

I don't understand how a copyright license can restrict consulting. If Redis Labs distributes redis to Alice, and Alice hires Bob for redis consulting, neither Alice or Bob are distributing Redis so the license terms are irrelevant to them.

I second this. How could a software license prevent me from learning about how a piece of software works and selling my own knowledge and experience to a third party.

IANAL but I couldn’t possibly need a license to install/redistribute Redis to talk to someone about how Redis works.

Re: Commons Clause

#172

Post by LukeShu »

DannyBee wrote: post #160
CharlesW wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense… TFA plainly says that it isn't, "at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD." > I'm sure you can make up another word other than "proprietary" to call it… TFA also answers this: > "Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to 'source-available'."

I was clearly replying to the claim made that this doesn't make redis proprietary. As I said, they just made up a new word for their version of proprietary. Also, the FAQ was added after I posted. Look at GitHub commits :)

I understood the claim as saying that redis itself isn't using the commons clause, and that it's only some enterprise redis modules that are adding the clause to their license.

Re: Commons Clause

#173

Post by andrepd »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #167
andrepd wrote: post #161

>Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Then it seems the solution is simple: use GPL rather than BSD. In other words, say "Do you want to use this free software for your benefit? Fine, but in turn give bac…

Do the cloud providers make significant in-house modifications to Redis?

Big or small, they would have to duly disclose and release what they built from that tool.

Re: Commons Clause

#174

Post by thrillgore »

bodas wrote: post #68

What a lesson in unintended consequences. The license is vague enough that Amazon & co can just lawyer up and ignore it. What are they going to do, sue Amazon? Good luck. On the other hand, it will definitely scare away users of their software who will be concerned that their CRUD app derives "substantial" value from it and is thus infringing.

This was my takeaway. Amazon is basically squeaky clean as long as they avoid modules but everyone else just using a module on a redis install for a k/v database? You're now subject to additional license fees.

It's not as sexy as redis but Memcache has none of these license issues and would be sufficiently usable for k/v data where I work. It's not vaugely licensed either.

Congrats Redis Labs, you played yourself.

Re: Commons Clause

#175

Post by toomuchtodo »

unimpressive wrote: post #169
toomuchtodo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that their approach to restricting consulting is...unconventional, but I support their legal right to do so. Their code, their rules.

This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. "You have the right to create your own operating system" is not a take that would be supported by any serious analysis seeking fairness for both parties.

> This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem.

Your issue is not with my attitude, it is with copyright law and property rights. Someone's right to license their software any way they see fit is not "toxic". You take issue to an erosion of rights that do not exist, and your participation in an ecosystem is voluntary. At it's core, you are demanding the ability to govern your use of property that is not yours.

EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse.

Re: Commons Clause

#176

Post by unimpressive »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175
unimpressive wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. "You have the right to create your own operating system" is not a take that would be supported by any serious analysis seeking fairness for both parties.

> This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. Your issue is not with my attitude, it is with copyright law and property rights. Someone's right to license their software any way they see fit is not "toxi…

Laws reflect attitudes, supporting unjust laws with your opinion sustains them. So yes, my issue is with your attitude.

EDIT: Since you've edited your comment to elaborate I'll respond in kind:

If by default I have the legal right to reverse engineer your software, and you can strip this from me with a 'contract' that amounts to a checkbox with text that nobody reads and therefore has no marginal cost to add enforceable boilerplate to, that is a basic perversion of the intent of contract law. Contract laws start from the premise that a contract should protect both parties. One sided contracts are in general antithetical to the goals of contract law:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-un...

A boilerplate click through disclaimer should not be able to prevent me from taking actions that the vendor finds inconvenient but are otherwise legal and nonviolent.

EDIT 2: To clarify, the portion cited as an "edit" above:

"EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse. "

Was not the full extent of editing of the parent comment, which had significant text added between me replying and its present state.

Re: Commons Clause

#177

Post by no_wizard »

So I just want to ask about clairification. I am leaning toward liking this as it solves sole practical concerns for these types of businesses and projects but one small thing I’m struggling to understand is how it affects trainings and or consulting where you derive your income teaching people or integrating people with these systems

The language around that was very legalese if anyone has opinions

Re: Commons Clause

#178

Post by abrookewood »

endlessvoid94 wrote: post #155

Trying to understand the motivation here. In principle, what's the difference between my company taking advantage of open source software (cost savings, huge advantage because I don't have to build everything in-house) and a company that offers a hosted version of said software? In both cases, I am benefitting economically and not contributing upstream.

The difference is the second company is earning money directly off the labour of open source software ... that and the fact that the second company is worth billions.

None of this would have happened if AWS etc had of supported the open source contributors and projects that they were relying upon in some meaningful way.

I actually support this move and wish RedisLabs the best of luck.

Re: Commons Clause

#179

Post by quanticle »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #170
quanticle wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. They absolutely are. And I'm free to say that their license is ridiculous and do my best to warn others about the potential pitfalls of their license. >You could go build your own infrastructure software, of course, that is a valid path forward. B…

> Not true. You have to remember that the new license only applies to Redis going forward. I'm free to take my copy of the old Redis codebase, fork it into something, say, NuCache, and hack on that to try to keep up with and surpass Redis. True! But that means today's Redis is in maintenance mode, with all new commercially-relevant features covered under the new license.

True, but that assumes that Redis is the only one capable of coming up with commercially relevant features. If the community fork of Redis gets commercially relevant features, then Redis will have to do work to re-implement them.

Moreover, that assumes that said commercially relevant features are compelling enough for people to upgrade from the unencumbered version of redis that they have to the encumbered version.

Re: Commons Clause

#180

Post by endlessvoid94 »

abrookewood wrote: post #178
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #155

Trying to understand the motivation here. In principle, what's the difference between my company taking advantage of open source software (cost savings, huge advantage because I don't have to build everything in-house) and a company that offers a hosted version of said software? In both cases, I am benefitting economically and not contributing upstream.

The difference is the second company is earning money directly off the labour of open source software ... that and the fact that the second company is worth billions. None of this would have happened if AWS etc had of supported the open source contributors and projects that they were relying upon in some meaningful way. I actually support this move and wish RedisLabs the best of luck.

What if the first company is also worth billions and hasn't contributed anything upstream? How is that any different?
Post reply on HN