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

351–360 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#351

Post by jarcane »

rplnt wrote: post #311
another-cuppa wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.

It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.

If they will not use my free software because of the expectation that they contribute back even a little, then they are not users I want anyway, so who cares?

I find the entitlement complex that some software developers have over other peoples' software to be bizarre. "How dare you offer this free software under terms that don't allow me to exploit your labor commercially without the slightest contribution!" is a real thing that real people say every goddamn time you dare release anything not MIT/BSD licensed.

Re: Commons Clause

#352

Post by etatoby »

Boulth wrote: post #285
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 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.

So why aren't they simply re-licensing under AGPL? That's what I would do.

Re: Commons Clause

#353

Post by etatoby »

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'…

Question: why all this mess instead of simply re-licensing under the AGPL? (which was created to address the specific issue Redis is having)

Re: Commons Clause

#354

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

dang wrote: post #203
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I remember seeing this when you first started it and I spoke out against it then. I should have spoken more loudly, because I assumed no sane maintainer would have taken you seriously. Software which uses this model is not open source, plain and simple. This is a disgrace on our community and I am sorely disappointed in you and in Redis. What pushes OSS devs to cease being OSS devs is an important problem to sol…

That crosses into incivility and you can't do that here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. You surely know this. Please don't do it again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I am very angry and showing it, but I don't think I've crossed the line into incivility. Naturally it's your call.

Re: Commons Clause

#355

Post by blattimwind »

anyzen wrote: post #347
skrebbel wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always wondered why GPL dual licensing isn't more popular. In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. That still allows you to be extremely permissive but you get the make the call. Eg if I were coding a database like Redis, maybe I'd be totally cool with people freely using it in their moonshot VC-funded trike sharing site, but not with cloud providers offe…

> In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. Maybe because then you need to have CLA's (Contributor License Agreements)? Otherwise, who is "you" that they need to ask? It's not just your code, it is based on work of many other contributers.

Not if you don't have any other contributors.

Re: Commons Clause

#356

Post by detaro »

sonarlunar wrote: post #294
gav wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Redis was not funded by those companies. Salvatore was sponsored to work on his own project they had a business need for. All copyright and trademarks belonged and still belong to Salvatore, according to redis.io To my understanding, this was a sponsorship, ie a support contract to debug and improve an open source product VMware and Pivotal (same people, different name) were using and depending upon for their product…

How is "paying the creator money to work on it" not "funding a project"?

Re: Commons Clause

#357

Post by tveita »

kjeetgill wrote: post #202
mmastrac wrote: post #7

This is the license below. I'm pretty sure this is going to be vague enough to cause problems with a ton of legal departments. They want to be the only ones hosting it and the the only ones you call in to help with it. I get where the Redis folks are coming from, but this is basically a nail in the product and guarantees a fork if they don't turn back. === 8 The Software is provided to you by the Licensor under the L…

Redis core plans to remain BSD. I honestly think this whole thread is missing this and it's incredibly crucial. From the article: > The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.” These modules can be freely used in any application, but selling a product whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from…

And Redis Labs with them?

Assume for a second that your company gets significant value from these modules and you are happy to pay for support and hosting.

Now if Redis Labs goes bankrupt, you're stuck with your business depending on toxic software that you can't pay anyone else to maintain, host or even consult about.

You'd be better off paying someone else to maintain the open source version to begin with.

Re: Commons Clause

#358

Post by jononor »

The primary target here seems to be cloud hosting companies that provide Redis-as-a-Service. But the seemingly wide definition of Sell, including how consulting/support services are mention makes me confused. Can I as a software developer working as a consultant, still create an app for customers which uses Redis with modules under Commons Clause?

...the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software. For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software...

One of the nice things about MIT/BSD/Apache over GPL/LPGL was the ability to use a software without needing to involve lawyers. This might just have gone out the window...

Re: Commons Clause

#359

Post by oliwarner »

blattimwind wrote: post #355
anyzen wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In particular, I've always wondered why "GPL or ask me for permission" isn't being explored more. Maybe because then you need to have CLA's (Contributor License Agreements)? Otherwise, who is "you" that they need to ask? It's not just your code, it is based on work of many other contributers.

Not if you don't have any other contributors.

But you'll have an epic dilemma the day they drop the PR.

Re: Commons Clause

#360

Post by oliwarner »

rplnt wrote: post #311
another-cuppa wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.

It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.

No, try: "Do I want the end users of my software to have rights?"

That's what GPL ensures. You can use GPL software anywhere but if you're giving it to other people, you have to give them the same rights you were afforded. And sometimes that also means giving them access to your software too.

LGPL exists too. Makes it a bit more simple for drop-in-libraries.

Post reply on HN