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

261–270 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#261

Post by jaredklewis »

mful wrote: post #241
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…

> Are you willing to release your code, both in the sense of putting it out into the world and emancipating it from your ownership? Do you accept that your code could be renamed, rebranded, repackaged, rented, traded or sold? Would you be happy if your code made someone else rich, famous or successful while you saw no benefit at all? I suspect it's a lot easier to say "yes" to these questions when you're just startin…

I think you are probably right. When starting the project, creators value their work very little, but value any attention given to their project very highly, thus a permissive license makes sense. Only after success hits do they regret it.

Even so, if someone was seeking fame and fortune through OSS (a somewhat foolish mission, but whatever), I would still probably recommend they release their software with a permissive license as companies are far more willing to get on board with MIT/Apache licensed software. I mean just look at the incredible amount of hate Facebook got for having the gall to offer a free patent grant with gasp a condition that you not sue them.

The best way to personally profit from OSS is very oblique. Assuming you make a kind of software useful to businesses like Redis (not end user software), it can look very good on a resume, can help you land some speaking gigs, maybe a book deal, and so on. If you build up your reputation like that, it should be possible to land a cushy, high paying job at a tech company somewhere or high paying support consulting.

Re: Commons Clause

#262

Post by buboard »

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…

> but to pick a license that matches your intent

or dont release open source, there s a place for proprietary code

Re: Commons Clause

#263

Post by ZiiS »

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.

10 out of 10 of the largest tech firms in the world release significant opensource software: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Alibaba, Intel, Oracle, Samsung and Baidu. They turnover more then $1 trillion and use many lawyers.

Re: Commons Clause

#264

Post by icc97 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #261
mful wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you willing to release your code, both in the sense of putting it out into the world and emancipating it from your ownership? Do you accept that your code could be renamed, rebranded, repackaged, rented, traded or sold? Would you be happy if your code made someone else rich, famous or successful while you saw no benefit at all? I suspect it's a lot easier to say "yes" to these questions when you're just startin…

I think you are probably right. When starting the project, creators value their work very little, but value any attention given to their project very highly, thus a permissive license makes sense. Only after success hits do they regret it. Even so, if someone was seeking fame and fortune through OSS (a somewhat foolish mission, but whatever), I would still probably recommend they release their software with a permiss…

This seems similar to how young singers and musicians end up stuck in bad contracts.

Re: Commons Clause

#265

Post by tannhaeuser »

tokyodude wrote: post #255
tannhaeuser wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

because they give me a service for free? Or just because we're all in this together? I'm sure it depends on the examples you pick. I'm totally happy if people use my MITed code in a commerical product without reciprocating. I'm not writing it for them. I'm mostly writing it for myself. The payback is the joy I feel when others find it useful. I also feel joy by being part of the larger collection of people and compan…

git is a good example. It's GPLv2, but that hasn't prevented it from being used to form a near-monopoly (github) for F/OSS, now bought by MS. Linux: used in the world's largest spynet (Android). Your joy and enthusiasm being taken advantage of for nefarious purposes.

Re: Commons Clause

#266

Post by paulsutter »

peterwwillis wrote: post #260
paulsutter wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gran…

According to this new clause, you may never provide consulting services for a fee if it involves these modules. Still cool?

No, the value of your consulting derives from your skill and effort.

Definitely share with them any proposed wording changes that could clarify the matter. I’m sure that’s not their intent. Lawyer friends may be able to help both with interpretation and comments.

Think of this as “license r&d” rather than a rush to verdict.

Re: Commons Clause

#267

Post by krn »

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 think, BSD / MIT / Apache should be used for open source libraries, and MPL / GPL / AGPL for open source products. This way, a developer can build a new product using open source libraries without sharing its source code, but he cannot repackage an existing open source product without sharing its modifications.

Re: Commons Clause

#268

Post by icc97 »

kjeetgill wrote: post #199
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 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 sour…

Yes, further from the article:

> Therefore, the no-sale restriction imposed by Commons Clause means that any software under this new license is non-open source by definition.

Re: Commons Clause

#269

Post by pas »

sincerely wrote: post #259
tokyodude wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because they give me a service for free? Or just because we're all in this together? I'm sure it depends on the examples you pick. I'm totally happy if people use my MITed code in a commerical product without reciprocating. I'm not writing it for them. I'm mostly writing it for myself. The payback is the joy I feel when others find it useful. I also feel joy by being part of the larger collection of people and compan…

How can you say “We’re all in this together” when youre donating your time and they use the fruits of that labor to profit off you

OP increases the sum in the non-zero-sum sense. Sure, gots back directly nothing, but the chance that gets more eventually increases.

Re: Commons Clause

#270

Post by slavak »

tomnipotent wrote: post #237
slavak wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, nothing you obtain from the antirez/redis repo will come with this restriction clause, and you are free to continue using it under the terms of the vanilla BSD license.

The new clause is mainly used for some of the add-on Redis modules developed by Redis Labs (https://github.com/RedisLabsModules), all of which you would need to pull in manually and intentionally.

I totally get the confusion. The good news is that, at least as far as I can see, you should never find yourself accidentally pulling in something without meaning to that brings along this restriction clause.

Post reply on HN