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

191–200 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#191

Post by thayne »

vmbrasseur wrote: post #93
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'…

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…

> whatever problem it is that the Commons Clause is intended to address

I'm pretty sure that problem is that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others have hosted Redis solutions, and even if they do contribute some code, they are undoubtedly making significant profit off of Redis, of which RedisLabs sees little if any. And since these companies have an oligopoly on cloud hosting, it is very difficult for RedisLabs to compete with these hosted solutions directly.

I know that Elastic has had similar issues.

I'm curious what better solutions you would have suggested would be. Clearly such solutions are not widely known among companies that produce open source software. https://opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php has a couple of paragraphs on how to monetize open source projects , but maybe OSI should publish more detailed strategies, as well as case studies of what has worked for different kinds of products, and what hasn't worked.

I don't love the Commons Clause, but I do understand the prbolem it is trying to solve. Maybe, (hopefully) all this backlash will lead to a better solution for RedisLabs and similar companies.

One last note: Perfect can be the enemy of good. Apache with Commons Clause might not be as good as the Apache 2 license, but it's still better than completely proprietary with no access to source. Perhaps the Commons Clause will be used (as it seems to be with Redis) for open-core style business models, where the core is under a more open OSI-approved license, but enterprise add-ons are licensed with the Commons Clause (or perhaps dual licensed) rather than the usual propriatary only license.

Re: Commons Clause

#192

Post by sandGorgon »

Question : isn't the prohibition of consulting, too close to definition of non-compete that it is effectively nullified in states like California ?

Yes, I know this is just for one particular software - but this could have been made for an "algorithm" as well, which has already been tested in courts.

Re: Commons Clause

#193

Post by endlessvoid94 »

abrookewood wrote: post #186
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The revenue component is still different. In the first case, they are saving the cost of purchasing equivalent software. In the second, they are earning money. It's a subtle but important difference.

I'd actually argue the company that doesn't have to purchase / build it themselves is reaping more benefit, since for many startups, this distinction can be existential.

Re: Commons Clause

#194

Post by rectang »

kemitchell wrote: post #121
DannyBee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you name it). No restrictions on fields of endeavor and no discrimination is a pretty basic tenent that goes back a long long time (the DFSG were published in 1997, there are other things saying the same thing that pre-date it). I also know this is what other open s…

The appeal to authority is to whatever authority OSI, Debian, or FSF may have, not to legal authority. Licensing lawyers often know those definitions, or at least know of them. But they're terms of branding, terms of politics, not legal terms of art, and not strong trade or service marks. Granted, I think it's safe to say Commons Clause wouldn't meet the old definitions you mentioned, or please the people who wrote t…

The Open Source ecosystem rests on top of the OSI definition of "Open Source". Those with an interest in preserving the meaning of "Open Source" are broad, numerous and diverse; those with an interest in subverting it to confuse "open source" with "source available" are few, and destructive.

Re: Commons Clause

#195

Post by rectang »

mchahn wrote: post #97
DannyBee wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you name it). No restrictions on fields of endeavor and no discrimination is a pretty basic tenent that goes back a long long time (the DFSG were published in 1997, there are other things saying the same thing that pre-date it). I also know this is what other open s…

I've never heard of an open-source lawyer. I understand totally how valuable it is to litigate open-source issues, but I'm curious as to who pays for such services? Being able to pay lawyers seems unlikely for a free product.

It's just a lawyer who is conversant with issues surrounding software under open source licenses.

Re: Commons Clause

#196

Post by ubernostrum »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #185
quanticle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems like a superior alternative than allowing cloud providers the ability to generate revenue with your product that you receive no portion of. If you're already substantially "losing", there is no harm in doubling down. RedisLabs has nothing to lose by doing this other than people moving to another solution that someone else will need to expend resources and time to develop. Monetization shouldn't be a four l…

I've made some contributions to Django over the years. Some code, a decent amount of documentation, and I like to think I've been useful in bureaucratic roles (I was the release manager for a while, I sit on the security team and technical board, I serve on the board of its sponsoring nonprofit, etc.). Along the way, I've picked up pretty extensive knowledge of Django, inside and out. And I've certainly made money as a result of that!

But I can't imagine sitting down one day thinking "you know, nobody else should be allowed to do what I did". It's a big world with a lot of potential clients and employers out there. There's room for anyone who wants to get good with Django to put that knowledge to use to make a living, and I don't see any justification for trying to stop them.

If this were the standard sort of "we trademarked the name, and you can't use it as the name of your product" that a lot of larger open-source projects do (including Django, FWIW), I'd be more sympathetic. But trying to forbid people offering consulting or hosted "I set it it up for you" type services? That's a massive grab of other people's knowledge and labor, and I can't support it even a little tiny bit.

Re: Commons Clause

#197

Post by ubernostrum »

bastawhiz wrote: post #145
justinjlynn wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I made a comment elsewhere that I'd be interested in hearing your response to:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17816221

Re: Commons Clause

#198

Post by ubernostrum »

abrookewood wrote: post #181
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…

I don't see how the GPL helps. AWS etc make money by providing Redis as a service, which the GPL allows. If most of the work they have done is to support Redis, rather than changing code in Redis, nothing changes.

AGPL would do it, since it's specifically designed for the "cloud loophole" (or whatever the FSF chooses to call it).

Re: Commons Clause

#199

Post by kjeetgill »

DannyBee wrote: post #62
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'…

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you name it). No restrictions on fields of endeavor and no discrimination is a pretty basic tenent that goes back a long long time (the DFSG were published in 1997, there are other things saying the same thing that pre-date it). I also know this is what other open s…

I think you're misreading the parent. They are not claiming that the Commons Clause is open source in any way. They're claiming that the portions being moved to the Commons Clause are not "Redis" but rather, some "enterprise modules".

> 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It's only some enterprise modules. The Commons Clause is mostly used to temporarily transition enterprise offering counterparts of OSS projects to source-available.

Redis itself remains under BSD. From the article:

> 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.”

I think the parent agrees with you, explicitly referring to those modules as "proprietary" and "source available".

Re: Commons Clause

#200

Post by tomnipotent »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #150
jen20 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 , tha…

Redis Lab neither created, popularized, or own the copyright to redis. Antirez and the open source community that embraced it are responsible for it becoming a household name it is in the IT community.

And now that the open source community has done all the hard work of making libraries available in every language, fighting to get it adopted within our organizations, recommending it to our friends & peers, writing blog posts & tutorials, evangelizing it to our clients, and creating so much demand that AWS & GC both offer it, suddenly this company with ZERO responsibility for its success now wants to try and profit from an ecosystem it had no hand it creating.

I'm more than happy to pay for good commercial software that helps me run my business and have happily spent many tens of millions over the years doing so. But I'm not going to tolerate this bait-and-switch bullshit from a company that's trying to pretend it invented redis just because it employs antirez.

Post reply on HN