Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again • Hacker News Board

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#121

Post by kikoreis » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #105

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dream for how to make money with open source is to create some software that is useful to people and then have a subset of my users pay me to implement, modify or maintain it for their specific purposes (example: "My accounting department would like quick books integration I'll pay you to add it in"). Given that i'd be the creator I should be the worlds foremost expert on it by default. Maybe that's naive?

I did this for 10 years, 2 years as a freelancer (barely getting by) and 8 years as an employee. The project has now completed its lifecycle. You don't have to be a founder, you just need to be an expert. In terms of career development, I think the ROI is better on joining an existing project. But "progress depends on the unreasonable" and some people become founders nevertheless.

I did this -- working on open source founded by other people, from Bugilla to GNOME -- for two decades, and my experience is similar. Contract work is available for customizing open source broadly, and pays well, but it has all the common downsides of contract work. Notably, it conflicts with the growth-driven VC model which is where open source has ironically become a cornerstone.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#122

Post by anth_anm » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #50

anth_anm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

> 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?

DRM for machinery is absolutely already a thing.

What about shifting open source licenses so that duplicating an open source API in a proprietary product, or using a product that does so, is a violation of the license agreement?

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#123

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

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 recently quit the OSI lists, and am glad I did.

I once believed that the OSD did a good job of defining the criteria for open source licenses. That changed by experience of how it's actually applied, how it fails, and how OSI fails to redress.

The more I dug into available mailing list archives, the clearer it became that the problem isn't new. It's not just strong copyleft licenses and the constant stream of human rights licenses. It's the FRAND standards patent problem. It's the license-or-contract confusion.

The situation now, as I see it, is that OSD is largely window dressing for OSI. The OSD is vague and incomplete, but sounds official and technocratic. So it functions as window dressing for the prerogative of those with sway at OSI, to call it as they see it.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#124

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

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.

Rule 1 of open source licensing journalism: The title must be misleading. Otherwise, who would read this stuff?

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#125

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

I agree, for many, though not all, developers and projects. Crucially, a lot of folks who can't currently afford to do free work for reputation or personal edification can't currently afford to release open source.

But I also think the money point emphasizes how unfortunate the term "sustainability" is. Typical software businesses don't seek sustainability. They seek profitability. Why should the developers they depend on settle for getting by?

"Profit" has a corporate, rent-seeking connotation to it. In my own side projects and writing, I've come to prefer "gainful", as in "gainful open software development".

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#126

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #69

ezrast wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/BSD/MIT, does AWS currently mod stuff without releasing the results as FOSS? (Is Aurora DB really modified MySql or MariaDB under its core?) Aurora is absolutely a fork of MySQL; they're careful never to explicitly admit this in…

Good points. But regarding: > This is not true of the AGPL, which has additional redistribution requirements meant to prevent (what copyleft activists perceive as) this kind of abuse. It's important to note that the "kind of abuse" AGPL is fighting is denying the end user the four freedoms. Eg freedom zero: if Amazon shuts down aurora, you lose the right to run the program. Upstreaming of modifications is kind of ort…

> Upstreaming of modifications is kind of orthogonal to the GPL licenses

Correct. And well put.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#127

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #102

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…

My dream for how to make money with open source is to create some software that is useful to people and then have a subset of my users pay me to implement, modify or maintain it for their specific purposes (example: "My accounting department would like quick books integration I'll pay you to add it in"). Given that i'd be the creator I should be the worlds foremost expert on it by default. Maybe that's naive?

This is possible. Folks have done it. But consider that by releasing the open source under permissive terms, like MIT, anyone else can come by and do integration/adaptation work, too.

That leads to a kind of cross-purpose incentives. It won't be in your interest to make the code easy to understand or adapt. It won't be in your interest to document how you go about fulfilling those needs. You may face conflict in promoting the availability of your own services through documentation or other materials about the open source project.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#128

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #32

iceninenines wrote: post #28

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.

> AGPL forces AWS to be open with their changes.

Unfortunately, AGPL is full of loopholes, which are emerging now, because large enterprises with access to specialist legal talent are putting the microscope on licenses for projects like AGPL MongoDB.

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h...

MongoDB's counsel mentioned this directly in their statement submitting SSPL to OSI.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#129

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:13 PM UTC

djur wrote: post #58

anth_anm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 web hosting companies have been doing for many years. It's not new to AWS or cloud computing. There's an entire industry built up around running and maintaining open source software for customers. Redis Labs itself is part of that industry, selling a service called "Redis Enterprise Cloud". I imagine that somewhere in that stack they're using open source software that they don't contribute to, don't you?

> Redis Labs itself is part of that industry, selling a service called "Redis Enterprise Cloud".

Correct. But Redis Labs very visibly and substantially funds development of the BSD-licensed Redis core database.

Some of "open source hosting" companies did the same. I always think of Heroku hiring Matz, as an example.

Re: Redis Labs Changes Its Open-Source License Again

#130

Post by kemitchell » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

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 is also busted. It has its own loopholes, some self-imposed for nebulous reasons attributed to software freedom, some self-imposed due to FSF's peculiar stances on copyright law more generally.

Those limitations are starting to become practical, as big companies with legal talent actually start reading and analyzing the terms, as applied to important projects like MongoDB. Mongo alluded to those weaknesses in its submission of SSPL to OSI. I've written about them in slightly more detail:

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h...