For the Redis example, how does this apply to past versions of Redis? Are we going to see a MariaDB-like fork?
The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
11–20 of 248 posts
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#12Let them do what they want; the open source community does not suffer fools.
It's a dirty practice to build something open source and after a certain point, try to close it off. But, it's not unheard of. Any project can change their license, I believe Google did this with Android. Older versions will get forked and others will do with those forks what they choose.
I'm hoping doing this would cause so much backlash that it'll force projects to revert back to OSS. But, it could just push people out of contributing to OSS -- then again, there might be some people more likely to contribute if they knew no one was going to make money off their work.
Let the market sort it out.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#13Another 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…
"Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did."
Do you mean to say "can't use their stuff for free, but can do what they did if they want", i.e. a moat to absolutely prevent others from stuff is usually in IP etc. whereas restrictive licensing means you need to 'write it yourself' if you want it.
Despite the conflation of early Redis and the corporate Redis - almost all commercial projects that use Open Source are the same thing really. ABC Corp. uses Open Source XYZ to make software and protects their addtions. It just so happens that in this case, it's Redis going into a commercial version of Redis, not Redis going into CAD software or something.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#14Relevant: https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032180321834467330
@Antirez has confirmed the core project is remaining BSD. The "Common Clause" stuff applies to the modules that RedisLabs create.
Additional modules @Antirez creates himself, are also not under Common Clause, they're AGPL.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#15Preposterous logic. Therefore WHAT?
> If the Commons clause were to be adopted by all open source projects, they would cease to be open source, and therefore the Commons clause is trying to destroy open source
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#16> Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software.
> For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means...fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software...
Why anyone would ever use this license is beyond me. No paid hosted version. No paid consulting. No paid support.
I mean this is great for folks who have already made their money but for those of us with bills to pay, it's not exactly realistic.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#17This 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…
I don't agree that it's an ideological argument at all, I see it as a pragmatic perspective on what will 'actually happen' given the arguably 'ideological' stance of this new kind of license.
The license are short and powerful ant try to 'make a statement' themselves ... in reality, the resulting behaviour of the community is another thing altogether.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#18Preposterous logic. Therefore WHAT? > If the Commons clause were to be adopted by all open source projects, they would cease to be open source, and therefore the Commons clause is trying to destroy open source
Man. That is very silly.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#19This 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.
Au contraire, I find religion to be extremely fitting to the free software - open source debate. Richard Stallman himself is very sympathetic to theological analogies for technology debates, calling himself Saint IGNUcius.
Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
#20> Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software. > For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means...fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software... Why anyone would ever use this license is beyond me. No paid hosted version. No paid consulting. No paid support. I m…
> for those of us with bills to pay
Do you think the authors of the software you want to resell don't have bills to pay?