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

411–420 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#411

Post by Zarel »

nine_k wrote: post #397
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.

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 set…

> at best you can try and re-license it under GPL / LGPL if you want more control, and all contributors agree

You actually don't need all contributors to agree, you only need one. The MIT and BSD licenses don't ban you from relicensing into more restrictive licenses (that's why they're popular with businesses, after all).

Re: Commons Clause

#412

Post by icebraining »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #254
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…

Whose interests does OSI want to represent? Those of developers, or those who want to use other's work? What's gained by advocating Free and Open Source as if it were a goal in itself, and dismiss other licenses as not "OSI- approved"?

What's gained by advocating Free and Open Source as if it were a goal in itself, and dismiss other licenses as not "OSI- approved"?

The same that is gained by not selling cat meat labelled as hare. Clear concepts protect everyone, both developers and users. Muddling them only helps scammers. New models are great - as long as it's clear that they're new.

Re: Commons Clause

#413

Post by another-cuppa »

yebyen wrote: post #381
another-cuppa wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that? Linux is the most widely used operating system in the world and it's licensed under GPL. People don't choose not to use software because it's GPL. Why would they?

You're mistaken. (Well, maybe not mistaken if I read exactly what you said literally, but people/companies most certainly do choose not to use GPL software if they're looking to build a system that they can exploit for profit-making purposes.) It takes a very forward-thinking person to understand that they have more to gain from the thousands of eyes and the support of the community, than from a paywall that gates ac…

You're not talking about using the software, you're talking about making derivatives. The GPL doesn't restrict use of software in any way. It only prevents you from redistributing derivatives under more restrictive terms.

Re: Commons Clause

#414

Post by icebraining »

zwily wrote: post #367
macspoofing wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Happy to answer questions here You didn't answer many (any) questions. Here's mine, why is this needed? Redis could have adopted AGPL as the base license which would have effectively prevented any cloud vendors from using it as a manged service. For those companies, Redis could have provided a paid proprietary option. Why even bother with this?

AGPL would prevent a ton of companies from using Redis at all. A surprising number of big companies flat out ban all AGPL code.

The paid proprietary option wouldn't be AGPL'd.

Re: Commons Clause

#415

Post by rauhl »

nine_k wrote: post #397
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.

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 set…

> 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).

As a practical matter, I think that you're right — but I think that this is in many cases quite short-sighted of the corporations who choose to go this route, in much the same way that for many years they resisted shipping GPLed software to customers. One can make profit on AGPLed server software in exactly the same fashion that one can make profit on GPLed client software.

If Amazon offered an AGPL Redis, they'd still be able to build whatever they want around it, and keep that proprietary. I'd still find value in paying them for their running-Redis-in-AWS. They'd still make money. Their competitors would get a Redis … the same way that they currently get a Redis.

But antirez and the rest of us would get to share in their performance patches &c. Would that alone make him as rich as he deserves? No, probably not. Would it alone even enable him to make a meager living? No, probably not. But it'd be better than a BSD license, which requires very little indeed.

Re: Commons Clause

#416

Post by icebraining »

Nemo_bis wrote: post #328
mchahn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to learn about this. Does shared source actually allow one to arbitrarily use the source? I thought the only distinction was that it didn't allow contributions.

Your problem is probably with distribution and distribution in modified form, i.e. freedoms 2 and 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition_and_t... You don't need to distribute or license the software or process you use to produce the printer itself, I suppose. Help is available to choose a license which fits your needs. https://opensource.org/faq#which-license

All open source licenses would allow competitors to build and sell their own clones, which is what mchahn doesn't want.

Re: Commons Clause

#417

Post by thayne »

oblio wrote: post #316
thayne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I'm curious what better solutions you would have suggested would be. Dual licensing as commercial and AGPL.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how would AGPL protect Redis from cloud providers? The competitive advantage of aws, azure, and gcp comes from the ecosystem and available hardware, not from any modification or addition to the product.

Re: Commons Clause

#418

Post by thayne »

Xylakant wrote: post #340
thayne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I know that Elastic has had similar issues They chose a much more straightforward solution: some addons are clearly marked as commercial. No weasel words. We can debate whether the featureset of the core product vs. addons is a good one, but at least the message is clear. With this situation that redis got themselves into, the situation is much less clear.

> No weasel words.

What weasel words? They don't claim their license is FOSS. They do admit they are trying to make money. The wording of the license is a little vague, but I think the intent is pretty clear.

Re: Commons Clause

#419

Post by [deleted] »

thayne wrote: post #418
Xylakant wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know that Elastic has had similar issues They chose a much more straightforward solution: some addons are clearly marked as commercial. No weasel words. We can debate whether the featureset of the core product vs. addons is a good one, but at least the message is clear. With this situation that redis got themselves into, the situation is much less clear.

> No weasel words. What weasel words? They don't claim their license is FOSS. They do admit they are trying to make money. The wording of the license is a little vague, but I think the intent is pretty clear.

[deleted]

Re: Commons Clause

#420

Post by zeveb »

jondubois wrote: post #275
jaredklewis wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is true. Most people who start an open source project don't do it for financial reasons. Usually they want to learn, to build a reputation or to create a good product just for the sake of it. Later, after many years, the developer sees other companies making a lot of money using their OSS project but they themselves are basically broke; they're forced to work for other companies during the day and they still nee…

> I'm 100% certain that these companies would not have used my project if it wasn't MIT open source licensed.

Nope, instead they'd have hired you or a programmer like you — or figured out a way to make money from GPLed code.

The trouble with the MIT & BSD licenses is that they encourage corporations to freeload. That's why Google, Facebook, Amazon & Apple love them so much.

The great thing about the GPL is that it levels the playing field. We all get to share in a software commons.

Post reply on HN