171–180 of 206 posts
Hi, this is Yiftach, CTO and Co-founder of Redis Labs. First, let me assure you that Redis remains and always will remain, open source, BSD license. For avoiding any doubt - commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) is applied only to add-ons (modules), on top of Redis (e.g. RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, Rebloom) that were developed by Redis Labs . We initially released these modules under AGPL li…
Hi, this is Yiftach, CTO and Co-founder of Redis Labs. First, let me assure you that Redis remains and always will remain, open source, BSD license. For avoiding any doubt - commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) is applied only to add-ons (modules), on top of Redis (e.g. RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, Rebloom) that were developed by Redis Labs . We initially released these modules under AGPL li…
> AGPL license but found two major drawbacks (a) AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules I'm not sure I understand this formulation. The * gp licenses are generally focused on defending the four freedoms[f] - and freedom zero is the freedom to run the software. How would anyone think that a * gp license would prevent that? Am I correct in my interpretation…
So I'm not the only one mixing up "Creative Commons" with "Commons Clause".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the explanation. I see no problem with this approach in principle and wish your business the best of luck. However, you have made a big mistake with how the "Commons Clause" confuses Open Source under the OSD with "source available". You were not well served by those who advised you to do so.
Commons Clause software isn't just "source available"; you can modify it and redistribute it, such that the regular FOSS workflow of "fork on GitHub and create a PR" is legal. You just can't deploy your fork (or the original code) in a private service without paying for a license for that code.
Redis Labs has the opportunity to largely erase this blunder by ditching the name "Commons Clause" and offering the same terms under honest labeling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that what happens here is that enterprises don't like a license where there is this concept of open sourcing internal changes. They are happier with limiting the kind of use you can do with the code instead, like doing SaaS, that most of them don't plan to do at all.
AGPL doesn't require releasing internal changes unless the changed code is served (like in SaaS) externally. Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network.
I'm not so sure about that. If it is only on an internal network, where everyone who uses it is using it in their capacity as employees of the organization, would the source code obligation apply to them personally, or would it apply to the company because they are acting as agents of the company? If the later, the obligation would be for the company to provide itself a copy of the code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AGPL license but found two major drawbacks (a) AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules I'm not sure I understand this formulation. The * gp licenses are generally focused on defending the four freedoms[f] - and freedom zero is the freedom to run the software. How would anyone think that a * gp license would prevent that? Am I correct in my interpretation…
GNU licenses require sharing code. Bad for business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is not productive. It attempts to substitute emotion, misplaced empathy, and ultimately social shaming in place of a discussion of the linguistic and economic issues that this Redis affair is surfacing. Your post amounts to a ban on criticism, on made on the grounds that it might make people feel bad. It's an attempt to end discussion, not further it. Much like proprietary software licensing, this approa…
Nonsense. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause, I have a problem with people acting like Antirez & redis labs are the worst people on earth for choosing it, when they've in fact contributed so much to open source. You know what's not productive? Lacking empathy. Lacking tact. Lacking decency. You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over…
Okay, but...
> You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over
... you do, evidently, have a problem with discussing the Commons Cause: you want to sequester this discussion into its own thread despite the Commons Clause very much on-topic here. You are attempting to smear critics of Redis's use of the Commons Clause by claiming that criticism amounts to treating CC's proponents like "the worst people on earth". This tactic does not lead to the kind of discussion that enlightens or convinces. It lacks tact and has no place here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause, I have a problem with people acting like Antirez & redis labs are the worst people on earth for choosing it, when they've in fact contributed so much to open source. You know what's not productive? Lacking empathy. Lacking tact. Lacking decency. You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over…
> I don't have a problem with people criticizing Commons Clause Okay, but... > You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over ... you do , evidently, have a problem with discussing the Commons Cause: you want to sequester this discussion into its own thread despite the Commons Clause very much on-topic here. You are attempting to smear critics of Redis's use of th…
It's inappropriate and it is the tone I've seen of people who have driven various open source maintainers to burnout and much worse. So yeah, I have a fricking problem with that.
I've seen saying for years and years that we're going to see a resurgence of proprietary software. Free software was one of those ideas that spread so successfully that people temporarily forgot that life could be otherwise, which means they stopped caring about the idea, which in turn led to a complacency that, at first, shifted software licensing to a BSD-style permissive model, and now, is starting to allow 1990s…
Have you read the Commons Clause license? Do you understand it well enough to back up those absurd claims you're making? People see "oh it's not OSI-approved" and just de-facto assume it's the end of the world. Redis is an amazing piece of open source, BSD software and you're taking a huge dump on it and its author for not complying to your wishes. Friend, have you done for open source even 1/10th of what Antirez and…