The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source • Hacker News Board

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#201

Post by XiZhao » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #153

XiZhao wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Clause was drafted as a reactionary move to solve against specific bad behavior. I'm not entirely sure it's my place to call out these actors (I'll leave that to the users of the Clause), but our job was to open up an option that isn't quite "screw this, let's go full closed source". See the commons clause FAQ for answers to your other questions: https://commonsclause.com/

No, it's not bad behavior, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of open source economic models, and a desire to have your cake and eat it too. I will steal an argument from a friend who has been doing free software/open source for 30+ years now. Y'all created a bunch of open source software, it became valuable. Y'all think that you should get to extract some percentage of that value, and that others being able to do i…

Many conditions of a project can change when it goes from being a small community to a business that supports billions of revenue with its software.

Ultimately, the Clause is not meant to transition an open source project with the intention of staying open, it's to keep as much openness as possible when events happen that force a project to close certain things.

I think a lot of the fear is that this will make a lot of open projects close up. This is not the case. Other things are forcing projects to close, and ignoring those forces and blaming it on evil investors and business people is not only disconnected from reality -- it's a really sad an un-empathetic view towards those that _actually_ develop this software (actually = git commit history).

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#202

Post by sqs » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

There are 2 separate issues here:

1. The existence of the Commons Clause. 2. The application of the Commons Clause to software that previously was not subject to it.

To the original author: How would your view be different if a company released a new product or module that was Commons Clause-licensed from day 1? Would that still be a threat to open source? (What if the alternative to it being Commons Clause-licensed was that it wouldn't exist at all?)

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#203

Post by rectang » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

zapita wrote: post #193

nemo44x wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public cloud changed everything. Having Amazon just extract all the value of and strip mine the commercial value of these projects without contributing anything back has left a sour taste in peoples mouths. It made more sense when you could release a product openly and then start a business around supporting it, consulting and training and selling "enterprise" versions for serious customers. But now that's even h…

I 100% agree, and it's disheartening to see so many voices here ignore this reality. It's like there's more passion for the ideal of open-source than for the reality of how open-source practitioners actually struggle to make the model work in practice. Whether Commons Clause is the right solution or not (and I have my opinion on that), at least the Redis people are trying something to fix the problem of unstustainabl…

They're just doing the open core model, with a tweak on the licensing of their proprietary add-ons to exclude cloud providers. I don't have a big problem with that, so long as there's a clear delineation between the open source and proprietary offerings.

The only thing they're doing "differently" is the deceptive messaging. For this, I blame the Commons Clause initiative.

Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#204

Post by majewsky » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

dgreensp wrote: post #143

Does a software license actually have the power to prevent you from selling consulting services? All a license can do is grant you rights you wouldn’t otherwise have because of copyright law, right? I’m new to the matter, but I do see in the Commons Clause an intent to manipulate and mislead. If the goal is to provide an option for companies who would otherwise take their software closed-source, why does that option…

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

> All a license can do is grant you rights you wouldn’t otherwise have because of copyright law, right?

No, it can absolutely restrict your rights. A license is a contract, and other contracts can also restrict your rights in exchange for other legal goods (see e.g. NDAs, or non-compete clauses in employment contracts).

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#205

Post by skywhopper » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

This is from the guy who ranted confusedly and misleadingly about Signal a couple of weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17723973). And now with this post he's spreading misinformation about Redis (see antirez's correction at http://antirez.com/news/120).

I don't know enough about Commons Clause to have an opinion about it. But I don't think the author here understands it fully either. Clearly he didn't do due diligence before trashing antirez, so I don't really trust that he has the facts on the legalities here either.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#206

Post by mort96 » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 9:03 PM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #184

What's the difference between the Commons Clause and the GPL? What's the difference between the Commons Clause and the creative commons "nc" (non-commercial) license? I'm having trouble seeing how the Commons Clause is a threat to open source, while the GPL and Creative Commons are not.

There's nothing preventing you from using GPL licensed software commercially.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#207

Post by erik_seaberg » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 9:05 PM UTC

tunesmith wrote: post #184

What's the difference between the Commons Clause and the GPL? What's the difference between the Commons Clause and the creative commons "nc" (non-commercial) license? I'm having trouble seeing how the Commons Clause is a threat to open source, while the GPL and Creative Commons are not.

Apparently you can no longer do business as a Redis consultant or offer hosting. If it were GPL'd, you could, as long as you don't sell binaries without source.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#208

Post by antidesitter » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #50

_hyn3 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Invoking an atheist like RMS doesn't help matters, even if he may have a lot of wisdom and experience in the licensing wars. Conflating an argument over a particular licensing debate in 2018 with deeply-held religious beliefs that may have existed for thousands of years and even inspired actual religious wars (where thousands of people, or even millions -- might as well loop Godwin's law into this debate -- actually…

I think you're overblowing the potential for offense and committing the sin of assuming it's other people and not you that will get offended. If some religious person is offended by the characterization, I welcome them to articulate why. I'm highly spiritual myself and have interacted with many very religious people, and I can say that most of them relish the opportunity to think about worldly things using religious…

> I'm highly spiritual myself and have interacted with many very religious people, and I can say that most of them relish the opportunity to think about worldly things using religious framing.

Would they “relish” your using the term “theological” in the way you did in your original comment? Be honest.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#209

Post by platform » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 9:22 PM UTC

CC should really be renamed to 'Corporate Continuation' (or abbreviation changed entirely).

Commons Clause is misleading in the context of Open source licenses.

On a separate note, it is important to address volunteer open source contribution and development. I think as a community we are missing a model that guides how :

a) developers,

b) their hosting organizations

c) financial contributors / donors

can all benefit from their activities.

Right now, there are different models and experimentation are being used.

But I think we, as a community, could come up with 3-4 models that make it worthwile to the above groups.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#210

Post by lodi » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #160

lodi wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are no less censored if your boss threatens your livelihood than if your government threatens your freedom or Twitter bans your account. Of course I'm less censored by my boss than by my government. My boss doesn't have a monopoly on my potential sources of income, but my government does have a monopoly on my citizenship; I simply can't move to another country without the permission of both governments. My boss…

If you're vaporized in an nuclear explosion, are you more or less dead than if you suffer an aortic dissection? No. You're still dead. If the government threatens you with political imprisonment, are you more or less silent than if your boss threatens you with termination and legal proceedings? No. You're still unable to voice your opinion. Don't mistake the amount of power brought to bear to coerce with the outcome…

False equivalence. Let me paraphrase your argument a little bit:

"If you suffer a sunburn, are you more or less injured than being run through with a katana? No. [In both cases] you're still injured."

But of course you can be more injured or less injured. The entire point is that injury isn't a binary measure, and neither is freedom/censorship.

---

Let me put it another way... imagine the most oppressive possible regime, and then imagine the most liberal utopia but with one added restriction: you can't say "purple fuzzy dishwasher". That's the only restriction. Absolutely everything else is permitted but that one phrase is illegal, and immediately punishable by a million-dollar fine. Keep in mind that the most-oppressive regime also disallows the phrase "purple fuzzy dishwasher", and in their case it's punishable by torture and then death.

If your definition of censorship doesn't meaningfully differentiate between the two societies, then it's completely useless. You could only use it to conclude that "all people are censored", since there are always possible material repercussions to things we could say.