41–50 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
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.
> “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…
I think it's fair to say that people are acknowledging the problem: it's possible for a large company to use the rights offered to them by an open source license to create products that effectively end the financial viability of smaller companies that lead core development of the project. There's definitely not yet agreement on the solution, and Redis Labs alone is not going to solve it. Roughly I think different peo…
That's been true since the MIT and Apache license came into existence.
Your third item just reeks of justification. "not-quite pure open source license" is nonsense. This is not an open source license, at its core. The goal here is to prevent use.
So I don't think the third is a valid option when we're discussing "fixing" open source. It's a valid option for protecting a companies revenue stream, but in doing so that company is no longer an "open source company" by definition.
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.
I think it's still open-source, it's just not free (as in freedom) software. I'm annoyed how suddenly redis, even when source is available, is put into the same bin as say MSSQL, with rest of the "proprietary software".
It's more like an especially generous version of shared source than open source.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
I will use Redis if I have to thanks to my circumstances, otherwise I will avoid to use or contribute to restrictively licensed ("fake free") software.
Redis has a business problem and they are trying to solve it. Fine. If need be just make it proprietary and move on, but don't waste our time on trying to persuade me that Open Source always means free. Today they're targeting Amazon, tomorrow it may be the rest of us.
If it's not BSD, MIT or Apache-licensed, it's likely restrictive so treat it as proprietary (nothing wrong with that, just don't waste my time by selling me your fake Open Source fairy tales).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 res…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's still open-source, it's just not free (as in freedom) software. I'm annoyed how suddenly redis, even when source is available, is put into the same bin as say MSSQL, with rest of the "proprietary software".
The usual definition of open source is the Open Source Definition,[1] which was adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines[2]. The sixth item prohibits discrimination against fields of endeavor, which this new license would violate. It's more like an especially generous version of shared source than open source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
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.
I think it's still open-source, it's just not free (as in freedom) software. I'm annoyed how suddenly redis, even when source is available, is put into the same bin as say MSSQL, with rest of the "proprietary software".
"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…
Rubs me the wrong way when a cloud computing company repackages open source code and starts making huge money without contributing. Rubs me the wrong way when these same companies can just re implement the API and cause massive hurt to an open source competitor.
What do you propose in that scenario. Copyrighting api has never been a thing prior and likely wont be as soon as the whole affair is appealed yet again.
Why should you be able to control who makes a compatible part? Do you want your car company maximizing revenue by not allowing you to buy anything but new parts of their manufacture installed by their techs? Lets do it one better fueled by gas bought at a station willing to give the manufacturer a kickback. Perhaps to license the design of the pump connection.
This future is so fundamentally broken and stupid we would do better to abolish all forms of intellectual property rather than fall into this moronic trap.