The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source • Hacker News Board

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#21

Post by beobab » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:28 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #7

vinceguidry wrote: post #6

This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy. His ideal 'solution' is to just fold it all up and try to forget it ever happened. But you can't fight ideas, ideas provide solutions to problems that people have and if you want people to stop rolling their own solutions, then the orthodoxy needs to make their solutions actually work for actual people, not just the faithful. Not e…

> This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy. I find this use of "theological" insulting and not fitting to the situation. "Ideological" or "partisan" would be better IMO.

Whilst I completely understand why you would find it inappropriate, I'm struggling to see why you would find it insulting.

Can you elaborate?

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#22

Post by cntlzw » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

acjohnson55 wrote: post #11

For the Redis example, how does this apply to past versions of Redis? Are we going to see a MariaDB-like fork?

From my understanding the commons Clause can only attach itself to new patches. The old code keeps the original license without attachment.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#23

Post by vinceguidry » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

sonnyblarney wrote: post #17

vinceguidry wrote: post #6

This argument is theological in that it's arguing against an idea, labeling it heresy. His ideal 'solution' is to just fold it all up and try to forget it ever happened. But you can't fight ideas, ideas provide solutions to problems that people have and if you want people to stop rolling their own solutions, then the orthodoxy needs to make their solutions actually work for actual people, not just the faithful. Not e…

I don't agree that it's an ideological argument at all, I see it as a pragmatic perspective on what will 'actually happen' given the arguably 'ideological' stance of this new kind of license. The license are short and powerful ant try to 'make a statement' themselves ... in reality, the resulting behaviour of the community is another thing altogether.

The pragmatic perspective is the one given by the supporters of the Commons Clause. The ideological one is the one given by the Free Software advocates who have longer memories and thus know where this leads.

I personally support the ideological position, I just don't think this is the right way to make that argument.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#24

Post by njharman » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:32 PM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #15

Preposterous logic. Therefore WHAT? > If the Commons clause were to be adopted by all open source projects, they would cease to be open source, and therefore the Commons clause is trying to destroy open source

Exactly. If everyone used a gun to kill one person, people would cease to exist, and therefore guns are trying to genocide the human race!

Make an absurd assumption, link it back to your pet point, conclude something dramatic, link-baity, and utterly preposterous. For bonus points, attribute a motive to inanimate objects.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#25

Post by Someone1234 » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

fh973 wrote: post #9

marcinzm wrote: post #4

Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did. Not a good…

Fake news, according to the man himself: http://antirez.com/news/120 The whole thing is evidently not about Redis, but modules that were developed by Redis Labs.

People need to stop using the term "fake news" it is more a meme at this point than constructive English.

Even reading that statement and assuming the best intentions I can see why people would be upset/concerned. Redis has gone from Open Source to "Open Core" with some of the best modules now essentially paid for.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#26

Post by aequitas » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

acjohnson55 wrote: post #11

For the Redis example, how does this apply to past versions of Redis? Are we going to see a MariaDB-like fork?

As explained by antirez[1] Redis itself wil remain BSD and his own modules will remain open source licensed. Only the modules developed by Redis Labs will have this clause. So no change for future or past versions of Redis.

[1] http://antirez.com/news/120

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#27

Post by falcolas » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:33 PM UTC

fh973 wrote: post #9

marcinzm wrote: post #4

Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did. Not a good…

Fake news, according to the man himself: http://antirez.com/news/120 The whole thing is evidently not about Redis, but modules that were developed by Redis Labs.

That presumes that functionality of Redis is not subsequently moved into modules, and that new functionality is not only done in modules.

The current development path does seem to favor modules - a slim core with the functionality added as modules.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#28

Post by mr_toad » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:34 PM UTC

marcinzm wrote: post #4

Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did. Not a good…

> corporate grab of open source software

Well then fork them. I mean it.

‘Licenses applied to previous versions cannot be revoked’ - https://commonsclause.com

My understanding (IANAL), is that only new code can be subjected to new conditions/licenses. Old code can still be used under the old license.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#29

Post by snarfy » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:36 PM UTC

I can see their side. GPL was called copyleft for a reason, a nod to copyright. It's a copyright restriction which limits redistribution to certain terms.

Cloud providers do redistribute. It runs on their servers. They do not have to honor copyright restrictions. They can make proprietary modifications and keep them, and they do. They might be honoring the letter of the license, but certainly not the spirit of it.

Re: The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

#30

Post by wyldfire » Wed, Aug 22, 2018, 2:37 PM UTC

CocaKoala wrote: post #3

wyldfire wrote: post #2

> including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software Wow! That seems like a mistake. This casts too wide a net and catches more than it should. > ... product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software... Ugh. Instead of unambiguous freedom-granting terms, this leaves it up to a court to help determine this vague…

Why do you want OSI to weigh in? The license describes itself as not Open Source, according to https://commonsclause.com/ > It this “Open Source”? [sic] > No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.

Good point. I will delete this request.