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

391–400 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#391

Post by eru »

inciampati wrote: post #318
carlmr wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

git is a both domain specific programming language and library of software routines that enable version control. Curious why you don't see it this way.

Describing git as a DSL stretches the term quite a bit.

('DSL' can be a valuable lens to view a program though. Just like viewing things as eg file systems or databases can sometimes give you deeper insight.)

Re: Commons Clause

#393

Post by Karunamon »

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.

Possibly-ignorant legal question: Could the "CLA" be as simple as a checkbox on the PR submission form that says something to the effect of "You agree that your contributions to this repository, while owned by and credited to you, belong to (ownername) for the purposes of copyright and license enforcement?"

Basically, making anyone who contributes aware that the contribution doesn't give them a claim in the copyright of the project. Short and simple.

Re: Commons Clause

#394

Post by peterlk »

jononor wrote: post #358

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.…

> a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software

This phrase is where the legal battles will be fought

Re: Commons Clause

#395

Post by imhoguy »

mijoharas wrote: post #372
paulsutter wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. If you consult for a company…

I think AGPL would suit them well.

Re: Commons Clause

#396

Post by aequitas »

oliwarner wrote: post #364
jononor wrote: post #358

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.…

Yeah it's awful. But in answer to your question: Maybe. It looks a lot more forgiving if you flip it over from "what do they say I can do?" to "what could I get away with?". They'd have to find you first. Then prove you were paid. Then they'd have to prove that use-case was substantially dependent on their software. Unless your employer went to Redis an announces all this, their ability to go after consulting/freelan…

"what could I get away with"

Seems like an awful thing to build your business around.

Re: Commons Clause

#397

Post by nine_k »

another-cuppa wrote: post #274
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.

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.

GPL is great for infrastructure things: it allows easy sharing, but requires reciprocity and prevents takeovers. GPL gave us Linux, a wildly successful OS kernel. Also, GPL is compatible with commercial dual-licensing, which may be important in some cases, such as use in governmental agencies.

MIT/BSD is great for small, less important things, and allows for no-question-asked use of such software in basically any setting where software does not need certification. This is something many authors seem to cherish: "my piece is useful and popular!".

The problem is that a small fun hack may eventually grow into an important infrastructural piece, and at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree.

OTOH going with AGPL usually means that no corporation will ever touch your software with a ten-foot pole, so corporate contributions to the codebase will be zero (unlike GPL software). This may keep that software more free in one's eyes, but also obscure.

Re: Commons Clause

#398

Post by zzzcpan »

Karunamon wrote: post #390
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 why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider Because I care more about that my software was found useful enough to be used, less so about by who and why? This is the main ethos behind licenses like BSD and MIT and APL. That, or I don't care enough to take a stance on license politics, and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giv…

> and the BSDlike licenses are the only way I can put my work out there whilst giving any prospective downloader the least amount of need to think about license politics

But it also means that you won't be able to independently produce much software to begin with nor sustain such practice. If that's ok, then it doesn't really matter which license you choose. A few hobby libraries and utilities that you will be able to afford to write don't matter much.

Re: Commons Clause

#399

Post by nine_k »

dragonwriter wrote: post #385
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. Because handling “ask me for permission” is expensive, even if you say no, and you can only do it if you sacrificing much of the main benefit to using open licensing, which getting free work from downstream, since people having to give code ownership to you makes them less likely to contribute back anything that you ca…

Do you posit that people are more inclined to share contributions to a codebase that does not ask them to share such contributions?

Or do you posit that GPL (or another reciprocal license) prevents adoption of software where a MIT (or another permissive license) would lead to adoption of that same software?

Re: Commons Clause

#400

Post by slavak »

imhoguy wrote: post #395
mijoharas wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you consult for a company…

I think AGPL would suit them well.

I believe most of the modules that have been re-licensed under this new license were previously AGPL.
Post reply on HN