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

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#91

Post by tybit »

burtonator wrote: post #62
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? Why does that have to be a goal in and of itself Money is air... without money good luck competing against other technologies. I find that the OSS community is insanely naive about where OSS comes from. There's this assumption that it just comes for free like manna from heaven. I seem HN geeks (saying that in a good way) say how they want to use Firefox vs Chrome be…

Just because Mozilla and Google are both predominantly funded by ads doesn’t make them equivalent. It’s not naïveté that leads OSS supporters to believe that, it’s a focus on multiple factors, money is an important factor but it’s not everything.

There’s a reason Linux has been so successful even when Microsoft was vehemently against it with incomparable funds.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#92

Post by Semaphor »

michaelmrose wrote: post #49
dcbadacd wrote: post #43

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".

Because there is minimal value in being able to read but not use the source

Not sure the value is minimal. Many people read the .net framework source to get a better understanding even though you weren't allowed to do anything with it

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#93

Post by kryptiskt »

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.

GPL (and a CLA) is often used to push a commercial license or closed additions on the side. So the effect isn't fairness, but privileging one company and helping their business model.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#94

Post by brown9-2 »

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.

The idea that they are making money by simply repackaging the project or reimplementing the API is wrong.

Customers are paying them to maintain and operate the hosted version of these projects. That’s valuable in itself and should not be seen as stealing money from the software’s authors.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#95

Post by brazzledazzle »

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...

What would charities have to pay? If you’re non-commercial why would you balk at releasing your modifications?

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#96

Post by brazzledazzle »

antirez wrote: post #88

Please make sure to read the official Redis Labs story about the license change because this TC article is just terrible. https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-labs-modules-license-change...

TC isn’t exactly known for their journalistic prowess.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#97

Post by delfinom »

paulstovell wrote: post #89
burtonator wrote: post #62

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 Money is air... without money good luck competing against other technologies. I find that the OSS community is insanely naive about where OSS comes from. There's this assumption that it just comes for free like manna from heaven. I seem HN geeks (saying that in a good way) say how they want to use Firefox vs Chrome be…

So much this! At first the huge corporations saw OSS as a threat. Their model had been to spend money building software, then charge people for that software. Competing with $0 software scared them and caught them off guard. Now the corporations and VCs figured out how to use OSS as a weapon. And it’s a deadly one! The developer insistence on everything being open source means that it’s very easy for a large corporat…

>Developers expect everything to be free and open source.

Considering that before "OSS" was big as it is now, many companies would refuse to fix their proprietary shit even if we were paying, fuck them. Even now the proprietary software I have to integrate is often basement level outsourced to 200 consultants trash. If anything, open source filters companies out those that are at least proud of showing their work.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#98

Post by orangeshark »

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…

These Redis modules were originally using the AGPL. From what I understand the issue wasn't that they didn't have access to the modifications but that they provided it as a service on AWS which is what Redis Labs also offers.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#99

Post by geofft »

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".

You can ask Microsoft for access to Windows source code. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ Any definition of "open source" that includes Windows is so vague as to be useless.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#100

Post by ataturk »

karianna wrote: post #74
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

I work with Kafka and Cassandra a lot. Datastax and Confluent try hard to add value but fall pretty short imo. I guess there's enough consulting they can do with companies who don't have or don't want to have expensive developers hanging around. But honestly, if they're too expensive for the tippy top of the Fortune 500, who are they for?
Post reply on HN