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

211–220 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#211

Post by Canada »

sriku wrote: post #141
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?

All of the Apache's Foundations popular projects would be forked.

Re: Commons Clause

#213

Post by mikekchar »

markbnj wrote: post #143
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 t…

> the very philosophical foundation of the open source idea is that infrastructure software should be free, so greater ideas can more easily take flight.

This is true from a "free as in freedom" perspective, but isn't limited to infrastructure software. The idea is that all software should be free (as in freedom) so that greater ideas can more easily take flight.

In reality, once people started understanding some of the open source (as opposed to free software) ideas, infrastructure lost it's value. We all need infrastructure. For example, as great as Redis is, there are many companies who could build it. And if Redis goes proprietary, somebody will take over (and will probably hire antirez away from RedisLabs). The costs are not actually that large and the benefits are too big.

Think about Facebook for a minute. It was not that long ago that no reasonable developer would consider working there. React comes out. Suddenly, everybody and their dog wants to work for Facebook. Let me reiterate: Facebook -- one of the most hated companies in all of high tech. Sure you could sell React, but for what? A handful of cash at best. Actually, if you put a proprietary license on that thing, nobody would touch it with a 10 foot pole. But you bet they'd rewrite it. And share it.

Even the smallish company I do work for is keen to release open source software -- we just haven't built anything compelling yet. If we had the need for some cool infrastructure that nobody has built yet, you bet we'd build it. And share it.

So while we all need infrastructure, we can all build infrastructure. All of us. And we will (good grief -- look at all those insane frameworks :-P). It's cheaper than chips. That's why you can't sell it.

Re: Commons Clause

#214

Post by slavak »

quanticle wrote: post #165
toomuchtodo wrote: post #150

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. 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…

>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.

At the risk of repeating myself all over this thread, I feel the need to emphasize that the new license does _not_ apply to Redis proper, which, in the words of the post, "is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license."

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.

Re: Commons Clause

#215

Post by DannyBee »

pvg wrote: post #188
DannyBee wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(the FAQ was added after I posted) That's worse because Heather would have certainly warned them of these issues, and it means they did it anyway.

I'm guessing she's a well-known practitioner in this field. Why would one be involved in such a thing, given it's so problematic? The whole thing seems super-confusing and half-baked.

Yes, Heather is very well known and very smart. She's a hired gun (with no offense meant).

She is neither good nor bad IMHO. Though depending on your viewpoint, she's lawful neutral, true neutral, or chaotic neutral :P.

She has both defended accused open source license violators and helped open source foundations defend against baseless lawsuits.

Given how long she has been doing this, I would simply not believe that she missed any of the issues I mentioned (the ambiguity, the AGPL/GPL/etc issues). She's too good to have not advised them of these issues, and in fact, also probably advised them that the kind of response you have seen in this thread is a high probability.

But like any lawyer, when she is paid to advise, she advises. What people do with that advice is up to them.

Re: Commons Clause

#216

Post by phyller »

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,…

I don't understand this entire argument. Someone developed open source, free to use software, then didn't understand why people should expect to use it without paying for it. It's totally fine to make proprietary software, just call it that. If you expected to get paid, sell it, fine. And make it clear that it is not free. That's what is happening here, good. But wrapping it in a rhetoric of protecting open source code doesn't make sense. Maybe the common perception of what open source code is wrong in the general public. I'm definitely not a lawyer, I do respect licenses, but I guess I thought open source meant free to use, when maybe it can be interpreted, "free to see, maybe pay to use". With a free trial version for students and hobbyists.

Re: Commons Clause

#217

Post by DannyBee »

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…

Meh. We've been through this phase before.

Like anything, I do actually think it's reasonable to say "i understand the history of why things are the way they are now, but i want to see if they still should be that way"[1].

It may even be a reasonable time to see if that's the case given how much people have forgotten. It's been 20+ years since the last go around.

However, i do think ATM we will arrive at the same outcome we have in the past - after all the kerfuffles, i don't see things like the commons clause sticking. I also personally wish they would try innovative things, instead of old, tired things, but such is life.

Otherwise, yeah, i agree that pretty much no business gives a shit in the end about the licensing term difference between open source/free software/what have you.

I also agree that your job is to advise people. I do feel comfortable complaining about what they do with that advice, however ;)

[1] I don't believe most of the folks involved in this understand the history, but that's secondary.

Re: Commons Clause

#219

Post by skrebbel »

This limits not just huge cloud providers bit also little startups. In fact, Redis Labs would've probably never been founded if Redis had come with this clause from the beginning.

Re: Commons Clause

#220

Post by zapita »

sgentle wrote: post #208

> Help! Companies are exploiting my open source software for profit! Uh, you told them they could. > Yeah, but they're doing it without contributing back! They're just taking what I wrote and building it into a proprietary product! You told them they could. > But how is it fair that they can make so much money off my code and I never see a cent? You. Told. Them. They. Could. Time and again I see the same sense of hel…

> wearing open source's uniform without making open source's sacrifices.

That’s an oddly... militaristic way of putting it. Are you sure you haven’t been watching too much Game of Thrones? Your version of open-source sounds like the Night’s Watch!

Post reply on HN