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

221–230 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#221

Post by slavak »

wkoszek wrote: post #23

Weird. Company full of Open Source guys, but I think they didn't get the right advice on a business model. The reason why MIT/BSD/Apache licenses are there is that there's a group of people who want to let companies use their stuff. If you want people pay you, you just release commercial software, without showing the source. License is something that once put in, it's too late to change later, and not disrupt how you…

Sorry for spamming this all over the post, but I think it's important enough for everyone to see this:

Redis itself IS NOT changing licenses, and if you only use the core Redis product you are unaffected. This license change only applies (or _will_ apply, I guess) to some source-available addon Redis modules. (I'm not sure if any existing open-source modules developed by Redis Labs will have their license changed, or if this will only apply to modules published after the announcement.)

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

Re: Commons Clause

#222

Post by eloff »

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…

Is clearly intended to address the problem of how to build a viable business around open source software. Something open source doesn't address. Having a profitable company driving the development of an open source project is not a hard requirement, but it almost is. The difference is night and day in results. Any puritan approach that considers only the open source ideals, is quite frankly out of touch with reality. So I wish good luck to these guys.

Re: Commons Clause

#223

Post by gav »

MrBingley wrote: post #157
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…

> 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. 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…

> The issue is that large companies can free-load off open source projects and make millions while contributing nothing back to the developers.

This is far from true in the case of Redis. Salvatore worked for VMware from 2010-2013 and Pivotal from 2013-2015. It was funded by these "large companies" that you speak of.

Re: Commons Clause

#224

Post by vesak »

If you don't want others to exploit your code without contributing back, don't use BSD/MIT/Apache; use (A)GPL.

Otherwise, you're just asking everyone to think you're a cool and mellow cat for releasing full-libre, man. But don't take my stash, dude. Not to mention crowdsourcing bug fixes.

Re: Commons Clause

#225

Post by tannhaeuser »

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…

I agree. There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. Maybe it's time to reconsider in times of cloud oligopoles. Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider.

Re: Commons Clause

#226

Post by theyinwhy »

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.

As real world application of open source licenses is rather complex (I would say: A nightmare) you definitely should consult a lawyer if you want to put sth. Open Source. Btw. it gets even more complex if you think about application under local laws of multiple countries.

Re: Commons Clause

#227

Post by ubernostrum »

mikekchar wrote: post #206
ubernostrum wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, it just requires the service provider to also provide source code. The issue here is that RedisLabs wants to ensure that no service providers can use their modules and receive money. The AGPL specifically allows people to run the software for any purpose and also specifically disallows tacking on other clauses. (As does the GPL -- the only difference with the AGPL is that providing it over a network is considered…

In practical terms, AGPL would do it because far fewer people are willing to touch AGPL'd code.

And the start of this specific comment chain wasn't about "make money", it was about ensuring cloud providers "give back" their improvements.

Re: Commons Clause

#228

Post by dragonwriter »

marcinzm wrote: post #76
koolba wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the tone of the entire post is unsettling, it does say that the core server is still BSD licensed.

For how long is the question to me, per the blog post: >Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Doesn't seem like having Redis core contain enough useful functionality and staying BSD lines up with their vision.

> Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed.

Do you want forks? Because this is how you get forks.

Re: Commons Clause

#229

Post by XiZhao »

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…

That’s okay, but I think there’s two parts you might be missing. 1/ the Commons Clause doesnt apply to retroactive versions and in this case is not applied to Redis core. 2/ The Commons Clause isn’t meant for everyone. In the world of open source, sometimes projects can stay open, and sometimes they can’t. For projects that can’t, sometimes it’s because people do bad things that are disguised as Services but in reality add little value other than resell.

Re: Commons Clause

#230

Post by slavak »

no_wizard wrote: post #177

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

IANAL, but my understanding is that as long as you only provide the knowledge but not the actual software you're fine. e.g.: conducting paid training sessions, even ones where the attendants are required to download the software from the official site and install it on their machines for practical exercises, should be okay. If someone wants to pay you to install licensed software on their production machines and configure it... Eh, probably not.

Also to reiterate that Redis itself is still BSD, so if you're not using add-on modules licensed with this clause you're unaffected.

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

Post reply on HN