The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
drewdevault.com
The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
1–10 of 248 posts
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#2> including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software
Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should.
> ... product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software...
Ugh. Instead of unambiguous freedom-granting terms, this leaves it up to a court to help determine this vague notion of the product or service's "value".
Steer clear of these license terms!
EDIT: deleted request for OSI to clarify
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#3> including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should. > ... product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software... Ugh. Instead of unambiguous freedom-granting terms, this leaves it up to a court to help determine this vague…
Why do you want OSI to weigh in? The license describes itself as not Open Source, according to https://commonsclause.com/
> It this “Open Source”? [sic]
> No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#4Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact.
By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did.
Not a good precedent.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#5> including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should. > ... product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software... Ugh. Instead of unambiguous freedom-granting terms, this leaves it up to a court to help determine this vague…
It's already not open source software (OSS). That said, if some people might think it's OSS, then it'd be useful for the OSI and others to make that even clearer.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#6This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy. His ideal 'solution' is to just fold it all up and try to forget it ever happened. But you can't fight ideas, ideas provide solutions to problems that people have and if you want people to stop rolling their own solutions, then the orthodoxy needs to make their solutions actually work for actual people, not just the faithful.
Not every business can be Red Hat.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#7This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy. His ideal 'solution' is to just fold it all up and try to forget it ever happened. But you can't fight ideas, ideas provide solutions to problems that people have and if you want people to stop rolling their own solutions, then the orthodoxy needs to make their solutions actually work for actual people, not just the faithful. Not e…
> This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy.
I find this use of "theological" insulting and not fitting to the situation. "Ideological" or "partisan" would be better IMO.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#8> including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should. > ... product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software... Ugh. Instead of unambiguous freedom-granting terms, this leaves it up to a court to help determine this vague…
> Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should.
It catches everything. Commons Clause makes the software proprietary.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#9Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did. Not a good…
Fake news, according to the man himself:
http://antirez.com/news/120
The whole thing is evidently not about Redis, but modules that were developed by Redis Labs.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#10[deleted]