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

231–240 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#231

Post by vmbrasseur »

eloff wrote: post #222
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…

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.…

Open source has no place addressing the question of business model, as open source is about what people can do with the SOFTWARE. It removes the barriers to creating a business around that software, and that's where its concerns with business stop (and always have). It's up to the owners of that business to learn how to RUN a business.

In summary: "Open source" is not a business model and is not concerned with them. For information and guidance on business models, check with Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan, and other reputable business publications.

Re: Commons Clause

#232

Post by XiZhao »

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 don’t think anyone is saying this. Sometimes some projects need to change their license, are you saying the maintainers don’t have a right?

Re: Commons Clause

#233

Post by paranoidrobot »

rch wrote: post #32
ryanworl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redis Modules are more and more becoming an important part of the Redis ecosystem. I would imagine many features are going to be added as modules rather than as new commands in core Redis. Not being able to offer these while RedisLabs can is what I think they're going for here.

It looks like you could still develop and ship your own modules, even for profit, along with core redis.

This seems much like the "You have access to the source, so you can go fix any issues you find" answer to any complaints about OSS.

Developing modules for any third party software means not only do you have to have the skills and resources available to implement it, you then have to maintain it on an ongoing basis. That's potentially a huge task for small operations.

Re: Commons Clause

#234

Post by greglindahl »

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.

Any company that either uses open source code or releases open source code needs competent advice. Asking for such advice from a lawyer unfamiliar with open source is probably pretty expensive.

Re: Commons Clause

#235

Post by XiZhao »

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?

I think this is close, but adds the feature of source availability. I’m the first to admit the Commons Clause bolt-on feature isn’t the most elegant. But, if it’s a bad solution, then people can fork it, and that’s okay. I hope we do, and then find a middle ground that works better for everyone.

In the longer run, there will need to be a happy middle ground for people to

Re: Commons Clause

#236

Post by XiZhao »

mindcrime wrote: post #109
sciurus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else can we expect to see adopting the Commons Clause?

Pretty much either "nobody" or "the set of companies who want their projects forked and promoted by somebody else".

If a project has that wide of a contribution base, then the Commons Clause wouldn’t be needed in the first place. I think that’s the problem.

Re: Commons Clause

#237

Post by tomnipotent »

slavak wrote: post #210
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…

To be clear, this license does not (and, according to the post, never will) apply to regular Redis deployments, so from that angle at least you're clear. Currently it only applies to certain Redis modules, which need to be deployed separately anyway. I'm also a bit unclear on whether this would prevent you from selling consulting services for products licensed under this clause that the paying customer deployed thems…

Appreciate the clarification. The entire paragraph "Redis is an example" should to be deleted from this post to remove confusion.

> Consequently, we decided to add Commons Clause to certain components of open source Redis

Are these components distributed with open source redis core that I can download & compile from @antirez/redis? This whole bit is confusing an doesn't answer what components are covered and in what distributions e.g. source vs. packaged.

If there's anything we should have learned from the React licensing fiasco, it's that the open source community doesn't screw around when it comes to the critical software systems we've adopted on the good faith of the licenses they included.

Re: Commons Clause

#238

Post by kemitchell »

rectang wrote: post #194
kemitchell wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some experiences of open source rest on the OSD, but not all. If your experience does, that doesn't invalidate your experience. But your experience doesn't invalidate others', either. Browbeat or excommunicate all the heretics, I think you'll find yourself preaching to a much smaller choir.

Granted: OSD, or rather the OSI-approved license list, rules in enterprise procurement at a particular and fairly common level of sophistication. At the same time, I've had conversations with sponsoring companies, prolific contributors, investment types, and others, mentioned OSD, received blank stares, explained, and then heard they don't care. Not relevant. Does not resonate. Different experiences.

I have never seen any good evidence to back your claim of a quiet OSI majority, except if you count open source consumers as an inevitable majority over open source producers, and ascribe the former to OSI. My own direct experience of open source licensing news and work has been a constant drumbeat of interest in refining and expanding licensing models. HESSLA. Fair Source. Now Commons Clause. Experiments. They're coming faster and faster.

Many of the folks advancing those proposals, like the one linked here, are also creating relevant software. From their point of view, claims that their work is "destructive" ring hollow, since they're constructing lots of code for others to use. They're especially irked by criticism in consumer-centric terms, like those of the OSD. After all, the OSD isn't a _license_ compatibility guide, but an _institutional_ compatibility list. It doesn't tell you which code you can get into an open project. By corporate handbook fiat, it tells you which code you can get into your company.

Re: Commons Clause

#239

Post by paulsutter »

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 thought your comment was great, until I actually read the link. Once I read the link I’m happy to see this experimentation and evolution of licenses. As someone who builds services and develops open source code, this approach seems more appealing than GPL and seems to cover the concerns of the Redis project nicely. Time will tell how it actually works out, but I think it looks promising.

> the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software. For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means ... a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software

> 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

Re: Commons Clause

#240

Post by paulddraper »

incompatible wrote: post #144
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?

Yeah... I'm interested to know why they picked they been.
Post reply on HN