TL;DR redis is no longer open source. I wonder why that’s not the title of this post.
Commons Clause
281–290 of 496 posts
Re: Commons Clause
#282I don't think this is going to work out the way redis wants it to. Most likely, this will cause a fork of whatever "modules" they have applied the new "Commons Clause" to and everyone will continue on pretty much as before. It will also most likely alienate existing community members and dissuade people from contributing back - they may even lose important contributors over this.
Re: Commons Clause
#283Earlier 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…
> 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 co…
Oh no, companies make monies off of software provided to them for free even though said software didn't prohibit anyone from making money with it!
Re: Commons Clause
#284The P2P Foundation has some discussion on the topic: http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Copyfair
Re: Commons Clause
#285> 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…
> The GPL exists for a reason.
AGPL would be more appropriate for Redis IMHO as Redis as a service is not "distributed" to users so GPL alone wouldn't have desired effect.
On top of that commercial license for people that don't want to share their modifications.
Re: Commons Clause
#286Earlier 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. 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.
Sure. The same argument applies to the "enterprise modules", which until today everybody assumed would always remain under an open source BSD license.
Your boss has bait-and-switched once now. That's enough for everybody who cares to start risk managing future similar behaviour.
Re: Commons Clause
#287> 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 gran…
As for the consulting part, I doubt a license (short of a NDA) can restrict you from selling your expertise.
As for selling the software, there are creative ways of not distributing software technically, yet assemble proprietary and open-source bits at a customer's site such as using Docker with its layered images.
So while the intention might have merit, we have to wait if it holds up in court. My guess is it won't.
Edit: IANAL
Re: Commons Clause
#288TL;DR redis is no longer open source. I wonder why that’s not the title of this post.
Perhaps you should read it, your TL;DR is incorrect.
What the post says is that Redis add-ons won't be open source, but the core will be (which is Redis).
Basically this is a Open Core business model and they could have been clearer in their announcement because looks like a lot of people don't quite read announcements.
Re: Commons Clause
#289> 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…
Note that if you required CLAs that allowed license change you can change it later (e.g. OpenText did that). If you just accepted contributions you can't change the license without agreement from all contributors.
Re: Commons Clause
#290Earlier 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…
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 out…
> I also personally wish they would try innovative things
I am all for that. Do you have examples of what you are thinking of here?