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

31–40 of 140 posts

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#31

Post by anth_anm »

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? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself.

Because we need money to live in our society right now.

I don't think GPLv3 will help, You need AGPL or even more aggressive licensing.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#32

Post by anth_anm »

iceninenines wrote: post #28
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

GPLv3 prevents TiVo, AGPL prevents AWS. Puppet has an Apache licensed community edition, and they make money just fine. RedHat, Canonical, and so on.

AGPL doesn't prevent AWS, AGPL forces AWS to be open with their changes.

Which I think is better. You might not enable FOSS devs to make much off their work, but you at least force companies to contribute.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#33

Post by anth_anm »

xj9 wrote: post #23
tcd wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ne…

> 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. a license with these terms wouldn't conform to any definition of open source or free software. if you want that, go for it, but if you've licensed something with any libre license you are already consenting to allow anyone use your software for profit as long as they meet the lic…

It doesn't, but it's also not a huge condition on freedom 0.

> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

Commercial purposes requires compensation doesn't sound unreasonable.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#34

Post by anth_anm »

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…

> But, I know that restricting building API compatible software is not a solution

It's certainly a solution. It's just a really really bad one that makes lock in obscene and would probably strengthen amazon.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#35

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#36

Post by meditate »

wmf wrote: post #16
djsumdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 modifi…

If all their users are threatening to switch to some AWS managed service because it is better for them, then perhaps the software should fall into disrepair and the developers should get other jobs. There isn't anything wrong with this, it happens all the time.

It's probably true that Amazon is able to accomplish this only through strong-arm tactics, but it also seems unfortunate that Redis Labs feels the need to resort to similar strong-arm tactics in retaliation. It doesn't invite anything besides more pressure from Amazon and companies like it. Nobody wins in this in this scenario, especially not the customers who now have no refuge because both competitive offerings are trying to rope them into participating in a turf war.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#37

Post by yarrel »

anth_anm wrote: post #33
xj9 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. a license with these terms wouldn't conform to any definition of open source or free software. if you want that, go for it, but if you've licensed something with any libre license you are already consenting to allow anyone use your software for profit as long as they meet the lic…

It doesn't, but it's also not a huge condition on freedom 0. > https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Commercial purposes requires compensation doesn't sound unreasonable.

It breaks freedom 0.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#38

Post by numbsafari »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #8
mrob wrote: post #3

The biggest change here is the name. Instead of "Apache 2 modified with Commons Clause", which risked causing confusion with Open Source software, and with Creative Commons licenses, we get the much clearer "Redis Source Available License". "Source available" is standard terminology for this type of proprietary software license, so nobody should be mislead. I approve.

Thanks for pointing that out. That is a clearer name for their proprietary license. On that note, the title of the article is misleading. Redis hasn't changed its open source license. Redis remains BSD-licensed. This article is about the change in the proprietary license of certain Redis Modules.

The title isn’t misleading, but the name of Redis Labs is. I would wager that far less confusion and hand wringing would have gone on with this if the company were named something else, like sbaL sideR.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#39

Post by SloopJon »

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…

One thing I've found surprising and interesting over the past decade or so is the popularity of permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, and others. I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I don't know if it's down to marketing (the whole viral thing), the influence of commercial users, or if it's fundamentally what people prefer, as you do.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#40

Post by omeid2 »

SloopJon wrote: post #39
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…

One thing I've found surprising and interesting over the past decade or so is the popularity of permissive licenses like BSD, MIT, and others. I would have expected the essential share-alike fairness of copyleft to resonate more. I don't know if it's down to marketing (the whole viral thing), the influence of commercial users, or if it's fundamentally what people prefer, as you do.

It is actually about fairness.

Commerce is a fundamental fact of life and for many projects an opensource approach just doesn't work, this a lot of people have to opt for closed source for business reason, but the very same people would like to leverage libraries and "open software". I do. And this is why everything I publish publicly is under a permissive license.

Post reply on HN