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

491–496 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#491

Post by solomatov »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #437
XiZhao wrote: post #58

Hi folks. Kevin from http://fossa.io here. I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life ( https://commonsclause.com/ ) and led many of the project efforts here. Happy to answer questions here (or on Twitter @kevinverse). I wanted to write a blog post to set some context because the real story is a lot less salacious then "Redis just went proprietary", but here's a quick summary: 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It'…

> understand what systems are forcing deeply passionate OSS devs to consider more proprietary options Does an artist stop painting because they aren't selling enough paintings? Did Linus stop making the kernel because he "created a lot of value" that big companies didn't compensate him for? He should be a billionaire by now, but he did fine for himself, so he didn't care that people were making billions off his creat…

>Google didn't have to open source Kubernetes.

They open sourced it for pragmatic reason. In some sense, kubernetes is an open source cloud infra, and in this way it prevents AWS from monopolizing the market.

Re: Commons Clause

#492

Post by rurban »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #243
MrBingley wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, today’s cloud providers have repeatedly violated this ethos by taking advantage of successful open source projects and repackaging them into competitive, proprietary service offerings. Cloud providers contribute very little (if anything) to those open source projects. Instead, they use their monopolistic nature to derive hundreds of millions dollars in revenues from them. Already, this behavior has damaged…

Agree. There's a place for a commercial open-source license that can hold up in court, and OSI should consider it. Ignoring the economic realities (cloud providers making all the money, and projects starving off, or getting pittances) is hardly a solution.

That's what the GPLv3 is for. It's also the most widely used open source license nowadays.

Re: Commons Clause

#493

Post by rurban »

etatoby wrote: post #353
XiZhao wrote: post #58

Hi folks. Kevin from http://fossa.io here. I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life ( https://commonsclause.com/ ) and led many of the project efforts here. Happy to answer questions here (or on Twitter @kevinverse). I wanted to write a blog post to set some context because the real story is a lot less salacious then "Redis just went proprietary", but here's a quick summary: 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It'…

Question: why all this mess instead of simply re-licensing under the AGPL? (which was created to address the specific issue Redis is having)

1. Those modules were under APGL before and moved now to the Common Clause.

2. In fact the GPLv3 is the improved and recommended variant of the APGL. They should have switched to the GPLv3 instead, and would have avoided this misleading and wrong headed discussions, where people are mostly mixing up redis with RedisLab modules and have no idea about APGL vs GPLv3.

Re: Commons Clause

#494

Post by catwell »

sonarlunar wrote: post #376
catwell wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from your content to your weekly newsletter and all I am pchapuis but I don't have a weekly newsletter :) Not sure what you are talking about. I did contribute to Redis a little a long time ago, but for a few years I am mostly just a user.

Sorry - perhaps confused you for someone else ;-) Perhaps I know you from Lua community, dunno. Still a userid that I've seen before!

> Perhaps I know you from Lua community

That would make a lot more sense, I am pretty involved with the Lua community. :)

Re: Commons Clause

#495

Post by ShaneCurcuru »

sriku wrote: post #141
XiZhao wrote: post #58

Hi folks. Kevin from http://fossa.io here. I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life ( https://commonsclause.com/ ) and led many of the project efforts here. Happy to answer questions here (or on Twitter @kevinverse). I wanted to write a blog post to set some context because the real story is a lot less salacious then "Redis just went proprietary", but here's a quick summary: 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It'…

Why would a dual "non commercial" and "commercial" license not solve the problem this is claiming to address. Many OSS projects do this now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for one's work, but without saying how, what are those who adopt the software expected to do? Let's say the Apache Foundation adopts this for all of its projects. Now what?

Just to address the last sentence: the Apache Software Foundation would never adopt Commons Clause. It's antithetical to the ASF's entire licensing strategy, which is to give stuff away for the public good, with as few restrictions on users and redistribution as is legally practical.

Personally, people can use whatever license they want for their copyrighted works; that's cool. But the other important issue is: don't call it the "Apache-whatever license", because it is NOT the #Apache-2.0 license. Call it the "Redis License" or whatever else you want, just don't bring the ASF's name into it.

Re: Commons Clause

#496

Post by john-mark »

DannyBee wrote: post #62
XiZhao wrote: post #58

Hi folks. Kevin from http://fossa.io here. I worked on bringing the Commons Clause to life ( https://commonsclause.com/ ) and led many of the project efforts here. Happy to answer questions here (or on Twitter @kevinverse). I wanted to write a blog post to set some context because the real story is a lot less salacious then "Redis just went proprietary", but here's a quick summary: 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It'…

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you name it). No restrictions on fields of endeavor and no discrimination is a pretty basic tenent that goes back a long long time (the DFSG were published in 1997, there are other things saying the same thing that pre-date it). I also know this is what other open s…

There is a very bizarre story behind Neo4j Inc's behavior and what lead to them adding the commons clause to the enterprise AGPL license.

They seem to be ready to go closed source, which they should have just done in the first place instead of behaving like they did. Adding the commons clause is just the tip of the iceberg - there is a very entertaining story behind everything that is happening. A single person, not a huge corporation, is behind this.

I will write a blog post about what happened/is happening in the upcoming months - complete with supporting documents such as FOIA requests, etc.

Post reply on HN