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

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#111

Post by Dayshine »

gbuk2013 wrote: post #80
Dayshine wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult.

AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#112

Post by gbuk2013 »

Dayshine wrote: post #111
gbuk2013 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult. AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.

And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed.

If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#113

Post by Dayshine »

gbuk2013 wrote: post #112
Dayshine wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult. AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.

And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed. If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it?

A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification.

> If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to.

Charities, research institutions, etc can't afford to pay, and usually can't open source their projects.

If we move to an industry where AGPL is standard without any exemption for closed-source non-commercial use, we prevent the usage that nobody would object to.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#114

Post by gbuk2013 »

Dayshine wrote: post #113
gbuk2013 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed. If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.

Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it? A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification. > If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it. Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to…

No one is entitled to use other people's work free of obligations, although they are sometimes allowed to do so through the generosity (and sometimes naivety) of others.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#115

Post by Dayshine »

gbuk2013 wrote: post #114
Dayshine wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it? A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification. > If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it. Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to…

No one is entitled to use other people's work free of obligations, although they are sometimes allowed to do so through the generosity (and sometimes naivety) of others.

Aren't we discussing what a reasonable industry standard for those obligations could be?

That's what this entire thread is...

GPL says no usage without sharing.

LGPL says no modification without sharing.

AGPL says no usage without sharing.

We're seeing people move from LGPL to AGPL, which has generally unintended consequences.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#116

Post by Dayshine »

flurdy wrote: post #101

Think we need a standardised AGPL-like license that includes API as well as code. (Cue Oracle v Google ) There may be several in existence already? To prevent AWS and its ilk duplicating features of other's products but not really run (or pretending to not...) their software underneath. I also hoped Morsi's tweaks to AGPL, the Lesser Affero GPLv3, would have become more popular. [1] http://mo.morsi.org/blog/2009/08/1…

Wow, that license (LAGPL?) is exactly what I wish people would use in reaction to commercial abuse of their LGPL/GPL licenses.

Seeing people move from LGPL to AGPL is very concerning as someone who is working for a charity.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#117

Post by spectre256 »

sauceop wrote: post #83
gruez wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>RedHat makes, for example, patches for kernel vulnerabilities, but they actually give that away for free. What they sell is a promise that when there's a new vulnerability, you can get a patch from them quickly. What's preventing someone from freeloading? It sounds like regardless of whether you're paying, you can still get the patches.

If you're running IT for a major corporation and you have an issue with your OS that prevents your business from operating, what do you do? Hope that your IT team figures out an issue they've never seen before in code they have no particular expertise in? No, you want to be able to pull in people who actually know the technology and have seen it all before.

Right. It would have been be clearer if I sad people pay RedHat for the promise that they quickly make a patch for any issue available, and that they know how to identify which patches are relevant for any individual customer.

What's the joke where someone fixes some machine and charges $1000? Their cost breakdown was:

turning a knob: $1

knowing which knob to turn: $999

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#118

Post by detaro »

Dayshine wrote: post #116
flurdy wrote: post #101

Think we need a standardised AGPL-like license that includes API as well as code. (Cue Oracle v Google ) There may be several in existence already? To prevent AWS and its ilk duplicating features of other's products but not really run (or pretending to not...) their software underneath. I also hoped Morsi's tweaks to AGPL, the Lesser Affero GPLv3, would have become more popular. [1] http://mo.morsi.org/blog/2009/08/1…

Wow, that license (LAGPL?) is exactly what I wish people would use in reaction to commercial abuse of their LGPL/GPL licenses. Seeing people move from LGPL to AGPL is very concerning as someone who is working for a charity.

I'm curious about examples of things that moved from LGPL to AGPL, given that LGPL is more for libraries, and AGPL seems way more common in software that can standalone?

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#119

Post by WorldMaker »

Sahhaese wrote: post #109
Legogris wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current iteration of the .NET Framework, .NET Core, is proper Open Source under the MIT license. .NET Framework 4.x above is a different beast all-together and requires Mono for cross-platform compatibility. I am guessing you are fully aware of the difference, but worth pointing out for readers who might not be :)

.Net Core is not an iteration of .Net framework. .Net Core and .Net Framework are separate implementations of .Net Standard.

Though the argument is that because all of the innovation is happening in .NET Core (and indeed the .NET Standard 1.x versions were a game of .NET Core implementing things first and backports eventually made to .NET Framework), the clear indicator seems to be that .NET Core is the present-future platform (ie, the "current iteration") for .NET and .NET Framework the backwards-compatible past. Though Microsoft has walked that messaging back, somewhat, it's very much the case that greenfield projects today are best on .NET Core, and even brownfield projects are welcome on .NET Core (.NET Core 3.0 "Desktop Pack" is now the best way to build and run WinForms and WPF applications).

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#120

Post by WorldMaker »

djur wrote: post #59
tanilama wrote: post #51

What are Redis's alternatives? Might be a good idea to have one, had their VC backers pushed them too far into monetization, leading to even more drastic licensing changes.

It doesn't look like Redis requires a copyright assignment from its contributors. The bulk of the files have a copyright statement for Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez), but other contributors have copyrights in there as well (including Redis Labs). Redis Labs employs antirez and bought the trademark from him, but it doesn't appear that he transferred copyright to them. Even if he had, I don't think Redis Labs would be…

Yeah, it's a very ugly and confusing case of "trademark overload" where "Redis™ Labs" is not directly the owner of "redis" the server application but is directly the owner of "Redis™ Modules" add-ons for the server application. Redis™ is not exactly "redis", one of these things is not like the other.
Post reply on HN