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

301–310 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#301

Post by lozenge »

bigiain wrote: post #36
lozenge wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how you interpreted the license to say that's fine? Isn't the value of the service "substantially" its ability to run redis? And isn't the package manager a form of distributing redis? (Referring to the shared source modules, not the BSD licensed part)

This is the problem (at least for me) - the wording is vague and open to interpretation, which means if it ever needs to be clarified, it'll need expensive lawyers to get that done. A reasonable man would say "Of course the value of, say, Digital Ocean's service is not "substantially its ability to run redis" - even though any linux vm customer can run their OS choice's version of 'apt-get install redis'". But we do…

Luckily the core redis server is still open source. It looks like they've taken the nginx plus business model and combined it with shared source.

Re: Commons Clause

#302

Post by carlmr »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #265
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…

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.

>git is a good example. It's GPLv2

Is it a good example? I'm not very firm with licensing. As far as I understand it git is not a library or a programming language, which means that even if you use it commercially you're not really modifying or repackaging it in your software, so there's really no duties arising out of it even if you use it on your servers. Your software is just communicating with git.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Commons Clause

#303

Post by Vinnl »

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.

That by itself is not necessarily a problem. There's lots of people using open source software without contributing back, and lots of open source contributors completely fine with it.

The problem, the one that Commons Clause appears to try to solve, is when the "freeloading" companies also threaten the viability of the company supporting the project. For example, if a project is developed by a company financing itself through providing commercial support for that project, then that only works if that company is the main player that companies in need of commercial support would go through (e.g. Canonical, Red Hat).

Re: Commons Clause

#304

Post by icc97 »

I think it's worth mentioning WordPress who have managed to successfully maintain an open source version whilst building their own cloud offering to profit from. Many other cloud services provide WordPress as a service, but WordPress are still able to maintain multiple streams of revenue through 'official' WordPress hosting.

Re: Commons Clause

#305

Post by [deleted] »

cbsmith wrote: post #278
krn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's like everyone forgot about the LGPL and the guidelines about its use vs. GPL.

[deleted]

Re: Commons Clause

#306

Post by porker »

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…

> The MPL exists for a reason

How would the MPL help in this case?

Re: Commons Clause

#307

Post by porker »

icc97 wrote: post #304

I think it's worth mentioning WordPress who have managed to successfully maintain an open source version whilst building their own cloud offering to profit from. Many other cloud services provide WordPress as a service, but WordPress are still able to maintain multiple streams of revenue through 'official' WordPress hosting.

That's a bit harder for Redis though, because to keep latency down you want it running in your cloud, not somewhere 10's of ms away.

Sure Redis could run clusters in every cloud provider's DCs, but then they're paying for the cloud like anyone else and costs increase.

Re: Commons Clause

#308

Post by slavak »

bigiain wrote: post #295
slavak wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since you're spamming this everywhere, I'll repeat _my_ concerns. 1) Some of us no longer trust the company not to bait-and-switch again. 2) It's almost guaranteed that at least future useful developments will happen under the proprietary and consulting-encumbered license. I'll admit the company has every right to execute on #2 - t is 100% without doubt going to have me reconsidering our use of redis here, and keepin…

Re. 1, that's a fair point. For what it's worth, the blog post does explicitly promise, in writing, that Redis itself will remain BSD-licensed forever. Take that for what you will, since I certainly don't have any more info on their intentions than you do (and probably would be prohibited from talking about it if I did), and you have no reason to trust me any more than the blog. I believe a written commitment under a company's official domain should at least have some legal weight, though IANAL.

Re. 2, I /personally/ believe the BSD-licensed Redis itself will continue to be developed and improved as before, but I hope you appreciate why I'm being very cautious about what I say. I'm not really positioned or authorized to make any statements on behalf of Redis Labs.

Re: Commons Clause

#309

Post by [deleted] »

cbsmith wrote: post #278
krn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's like everyone forgot about the LGPL and the guidelines about its use vs. GPL.

[deleted]

Re: Commons Clause

#310

Post by yread »

wkoszek wrote: post #28
h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #24

Sounds like MBAs and lawyers are swooping in. Abandon ship.

It'd be much better if they asked people who understand business of open source on how to drive more $. For example: it could as well be: "If you're any of: FB, APPL, MS, .... and you use this software in your cloud, you owe us $2M/yr" It'd be much easier to analyze the impact.

that would be discrimination and that's would also make it a non open source license

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Post reply on HN