Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#11

Post by omeid2 »

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed."

The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL.

However, the issue that Redis along many other suffering from is called brutal competition, it is not even just tech or open source tech, Amazon is eating everyone's lunch. I don't have any idea how this problem can be solved.

But, I know that restricting building API compatible software is not a solution, not a good one at least.

Letting anyone build API compatible software is a natural order of things that enables innovation and helps consumers avoid lock-in, specially with stagnated software, this is a big deal and something that we shouldn't give up, so on that topic, fark Oracle.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#12

Post by djsumdog »

SloopJon wrote: post #5

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." Well, how lucky for the community that a wise startup came along and fixed open source. I get that open source business models are hard, especially in an increasingly commoditized space like databases. Still, it rubs me the wrong way when a business wants the goodwill of open source, then tries its hardest to bend the rules in i…

Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument.

Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BSD/MIT, does AWS currently mod stuff without releasing the results as FOSS? (Is Aurora DB really modified MySql or MariaDB under its core?)

But going back to the point, yes this clearly violates the spirit of what many in the 90s viewed as FOSS culture. You write it because it's fun and you want to share. If you can make money off of it, that's great. If not, whatevers.

The big players only open source middleware. Facebook will never FOSS messenger or any big critical parts of the platform itself. They only open the middle parts so other people can build applications dependent on them and the other big players.

I wrote about OSS both in the 90s and today a while back. It's kinda a log read though:

https://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source...

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#13

Post by Pyxl101 »

CharlesW wrote: post #10
wokwokwok wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not exactly sure why you’re being down voted, but from my perspective, hey it’s your code use what license you want. That’s fine. It’s not fixing anything, it’s just more arbitrary proprietary software. Just don’t call it open source, and keep your hands away from the Apache brand.

> Just don’t call it open source, and keep your hands away from the Apache brand. Thanks! So it sounds like you're personally okay with this solution?

Sure. Why not? There are lots of companies in the world that sell proprietary software. Nothing wrong with that. A lot of great software in the world, from a user experience perspective, is proprietary. Think about the devices, computers, and websites that you use on a daily basis - most of these are probably proprietary. I don't think there's any moral obligation for someone to give their work away for free as open source.

Let's just not confuse proprietary software with open source software.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#14

Post by djsumdog »

omeid2 wrote: post #11

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. However, the issue that Redis along many other suffering from is called brutal competition, it is not even just tech or open source tech, Amazon is eating everyone's lunch. I don't have any idea how this problem can be solved. But, I know that restricting building API compatible…

If Redis had some big product people used, and their Redis server was just a middleware component, it could be a great side business where they sell support, but not the primary business.

All the other big players like Google/Facebook will open source those middle pieces to help people who will make apps that will most likely have to interact with their platforms. They'll never release the source to actual end products.

Are there any examples where the middle-tier stuff is successful on its own as a business model? I guess you could say Redhat or Canonical, but even then they're developing a lot of commercial stuff around the core open source operating systems/distros .. things like Landscape. Also they got in early, years ago, and might be able to build a better foundation than more recent companies.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#15

Post by juliansimioni »

SloopJon wrote: post #5

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." Well, how lucky for the community that a wise startup came along and fixed open source. I get that open source business models are hard, especially in an increasingly commoditized space like databases. Still, it rubs me the wrong way when a business wants the goodwill of open source, then tries its hardest to bend the rules in i…

I think one thing that's changed is that there are lots of useful projects that would be great to have available in the open, but can't realistically be created as a side project.

If small businesses can stay around while creating software that is open to use, and can be contributed to by the greater community, that will allow a lot more good stuff to be built and seems like a win for everyone.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#16

Post by wmf »

djsumdog wrote: post #12
SloopJon wrote: post #5

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." Well, how lucky for the community that a wise startup came along and fixed open source. I get that open source business models are hard, especially in an increasingly commoditized space like databases. Still, it rubs me the wrong way when a business wants the goodwill of open source, then tries its hardest to bend the rules in i…

Why does one have to make money with open source? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself. Are people going to take your stuff and not contribute back? Possibly .. that's why there's the FSF/Stallman and GPLv3 argument. Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service? With things like Apache/BS…

Why does one have to make money with open source?

Making money is really a shorthand for sustainability. If developers aren't paid, their code can easily fall into disrepair which hurts all their users.

Out of curiosity would the GPLv3 at least force providers like Amazon to release any modifications they make to FOSS stuff to turn it into a hosted/managed service?

They may not make any modifications and those modifications wouldn't contribute to sustainability anyway. Developers can't eat contributions, so if a project is going to have any full-time developers then money needs to enter the system somewhere.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#17

Post by omeid2 »

djsumdog wrote: post #14
omeid2 wrote: post #11

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. However, the issue that Redis along many other suffering from is called brutal competition, it is not even just tech or open source tech, Amazon is eating everyone's lunch. I don't have any idea how this problem can be solved. But, I know that restricting building API compatible…

If Redis had some big product people used, and their Redis server was just a middleware component, it could be a great side business where they sell support, but not the primary business. All the other big players like Google/Facebook will open source those middle pieces to help people who will make apps that will most likely have to interact with their platforms. They'll never release the source to actual end produc…

Even with closed source software, Amazon will eat your lunch, even if you're Microsoft: AWS WorkMail is Exchange compatible. It is a hard problem.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#18

Post by vertex-four »

CharlesW wrote: post #2

> “When we came out with this new license, there were many different views,” he acknowledged. “Some people condemned that. But after the initial noise calmed down — and especially after some other companies came out with a similar concept — the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed because it isn’t suitable anymore to the modern era where cloud companies use their monopoly…

This isn’t a solution to building business models on open source software by definition, but it’s potentially a solution to building business models on proprietary software where your customers want to be able to fix bugs and make improvements on their own.

Note that “source available” licenses aren’t new - they used to be the norm, even around the time the Free Software Foundation was started, and still are the norm in some industries. Even Microsoft will sell you a “shared source” license for some of its software. The defining feature of open source software is not that you can freely see the code, it’s that you can freely modify and use the code for any purpose.

The issue isn’t that these business models exist, it’s that there’s a new wave of companies that wish to take advantage of the vast amount of work that FLOSS advocates and activists have done over the decades in order to push proprietary software, and that’s not ok. This isn’t “fixing open source” - this is creating proprietary software using a proven business model and lying about what it is.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#19

Post by kodablah »

> the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed because it isn’t suitable anymore to the modern era where cloud companies use their monopoly power to adopt any successful open source project without contributing anything to it.

Assuming "community" means general open source devs/users, this doesn't speak for everyone. The (admittedly small) stuff I make open source is given to rich and poor, startup and big cloud company alike. I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help. Lots of the best open source software are just byproducts of the primary method of making money instead of its sole driver. All approaches/opinions are ok, but not everyone has this vindictive attitude towards how what you give away is used.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#20

Post by tcd »

kodablah wrote: post #19

> the community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed because it isn’t suitable anymore to the modern era where cloud companies use their monopoly power to adopt any successful open source project without contributing anything to it. Assuming "community" means general open source devs/users, this doesn't speak for everyone. The (admittedly small) stuff I make open source is given to…

> I don't feel "taken advantage of" when my code is taken, used in secret, and nothing is given back. I'm glad I could help.

If you make a new technology and an entity bigger than you comes along and makes profit, gives you no credit and contributes nothing in return, you are not going to be "glad to help", you're going to want something in return.

These companies do not contribute so they're required to adopt the new rules as a consequence. It's not fair Amazon profits off work others do entirely for free. They should be required by law to contribute a % of profits to the open source community, based on software they've used. Similar to artists being paid a % of streams of their music.

You use that NPM package? They have a donate button? You should be required to donate if you're a giant like Amazon/Microsoft/Google etc.

Post reply on HN