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

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#71

Post by e12e »

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.

See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19223687

The gpl was always about end user freedom. The bsd/mit is more about developer freedom. Neither guarantees upstreaming of changes - but many see the gpl as effectively requiring publication of changes. And it does prevent restricting such publication.

But if you develop a point-of-sale system (say) and sell it to a store chain - they might not have any motivation to publish the source - even if it includes a patched mysql, or some gpl code etc (maybe a patched Linux kernel?).

Now, the client has the source, and hire someone else to adapt the system as needed, or publish the source if they want. But the gpl doesn't demand giving anything back to the original authors.

How is bsd different? In that case the pos could be delivered without any source code. The client wouldn't be able to maintain it without help from the original vendor.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#72

Post by doesnt_know »

dcbadacd wrote: post #43
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.

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".

They are the same. The full .NET framework effectively had the full source code available to read as the "Reference Source" but there was never any doubt it was proprietary.

https://referencesource.microsoft.com/

You can mince words and make inconsequential adjustments to proprietary software licenses but they are still proprietary.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#73

Post by ivalm »

meditate wrote: post #53
themacguffinman wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What jobs? How can the developers get other jobs if no one is paying for their open source software in the first place?

I don't understand, there are still lots of companies that fund FOSS. Publishing FOSS doesn't mean you can't go out of business, it means customers get an additional layer of protection from you going out of business or deciding you don't want to be in a certain market anymore, as Redis Labs has clearly done here.

Sure, those companies make money, ergo why people want to be able to make money while working on FOSS.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#74

Post by karianna »

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.

Was very happy to see the rename. I participated in the review threads at the OSI and whilst I have a lot of sympathy for Redis, Mongo and others (I’m a closed source software CEO myself) I felt strongly that open source is not a business model and the definition of open source licenses should be kept strict to the OSD freedoms defined by the OSI.

Well done to Redis for making this clear

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#76

Post by LeonidasXIV »

anth_anm wrote: post #30
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…

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.

This is what everyone is doing. Look at your node_modules folder. How many of those modules has your company contributed to? I think even 1% would be a tall estimate.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#77

Post by jarym »

I’m beginning to think the coolness of open sourcing stuff is wearing off a bit.

If it is core tech to a business then why bother? Lots of cool projects don’t really get that many contributors. No point getting a community hooked on your software if you have to give it away and hope they’ll one day buy some services so you get paid.

All in all I foresee it becoming easier that source is kept closed for all things non-core to a business.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#78

Post by Dayshine »

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…

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

AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use.

If I use ghostscript for a research data collection system, I have to open source the whole thing?

I wish there was a version of AGPL which exempted non-commercial use, as I doubt anybody means to force charities to pay up...

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#79

Post by avar »

I wish Redis and its ecosystem was 100% open source, but I also wish for a pony.

I applaud Redis Labs for not being one of the companies (such as MongoDB) that appears to be intentionally trying to muddy the waters by blurring the distinction between open source and proprietary software.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#80

Post by gbuk2013 »

Dayshine wrote: post #78
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…

>The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. If I use ghostscript for a research data collection system, I have to open source the whole thing? I wish there was a version of AGPL which exempted non-commercial use, as I doubt anybody means to force charities to pay up...

> AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use.

No, it doesn’t. It just requires that you release the source code of the modifications.

https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-lice...

An open source licence can’t prevent any use, otherwise it would no longer be an open source licence.

Post reply on HN