Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 248 posts

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

#221

Post by dwheeler »

rectang wrote: post #203
zapita wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree, and it's disheartening to see so many voices here ignore this reality. It's like there's more passion for the ideal of open-source than for the reality of how open-source practitioners actually struggle to make the model work in practice. Whether Commons Clause is the right solution or not (and I have my opinion on that), at least the Redis people are trying something to fix the problem of unstustainabl…

They're just doing the open core model, with a tweak on the licensing of their proprietary add-ons to exclude cloud providers. I don't have a big problem with that, so long as there's a clear delineation between the open source and proprietary offerings. The only thing they're doing "differently" is the deceptive messaging. For this, I blame the Commons Clause initiative. Redis Labs could take these same actions unde…

I think that's the real problem for many: The naming used here, and the supporting FAQ, appear deceptive to many.

Lots of companies have an "open core" model (where the core is OSS and some modules are proprietary). Many organizations have mechanisms where you can review source code of their proprietary code, subject to certain requirements. When things are made clear, there's no deception.

But naming a license rider "Commons" seems designed to cause confusion. It'll be easily confused with OSS licenses (since a "commons" is the discussed reason for having them) and with the well-known Creative Commons licenses. Saying it's a rider "with" the Apache License 2.0 also makes it appear that that this is the Apache License and endorsed by the Apache Foundation, which it is not. Saying that something is only OSS if you use the standard definition of OSS makes it sound like there's a minor legal nit, but it's a fundamental precept that OSS allows any use (including use by business).

> Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different.

I think that's right. I'm sure some would be unhappy, but the real problem here is the naming that seems designed to mislead. I'm not sure the information here was actually designed to mislead, but if that wasn't the intent, I think Redis Labs needs to change the names to quell the confusion.

If Redis Labs continues to use these confusing names, I suspect that the Creative Commons Corporation and Apache Foundation will consider going to court to protect their trademarks, since otherwise there's a significant risk of confusion in the marketplace (the reason that trademarks exist). Hopefully Redis Labs will just change to less-confusing names and then the problem will disappear.

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

#222

Post by wrs »

fasquoika wrote: post #140
wrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I’d agree, but in fact this post is not just criticism, it’s a demand for self-censorship. That is, stop talking about this, and don’t ever talk about it again. >The only solution is to bury the Common Clause project. Kill the website and GitHub repository, and we can try to forget this ever happened.

That still isn't censorship, or even anything approaching censorship, because the author has no power to actually do those things. It's still just a suggestion, albeit a pretty strongly worded one

That's why I said "self-censorship". Basically, not just criticizing (that's more speech), but to tell the person who disagrees that they need to stop talking.

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

#224

Post by mslipper »

I'm genuinely confused why there is so much backlash against the Commons Clause. Ignoring for a second the confusion around RedisLabs and its relationship with Redis core, the Commons Clause is setting out to solve the following problem with open source:

  - A person or company creates an open-source library, at great cost of time and effort.
  - A big company adds that library to their cloud offerings, at arguably far lesser cost, and monetizes it.
  - The library author receives no compensation.
This article seems to argue against the Commons Clause because it's not 'true open source,' but this seems like a purely ideological argument that sidesteps the true problem that CC is trying to solve: open source creators not getting a cut of the profit they are generating for big companies. Am I missing something here?

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

#225

Post by throw2016 »

Antirez discovered github was using redis by accident on a non related thread here sometime ago, and there was very little outrage.

Open source should be just about taking, if million dollar companies, forget supporting projects they rely on, can't even tell the authors something has gone wrong.

Ideally those who can afford it should throw some support to the projects they use. But clearly this is not happening, if the project becomes too important then they simply acquire the project with downsides for everyone.

There has to be a middle way that has upsides for all parties and untill that is figured out this can work in the interim.

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

#226

Post by zapita »

rectang wrote: post #203
zapita wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree, and it's disheartening to see so many voices here ignore this reality. It's like there's more passion for the ideal of open-source than for the reality of how open-source practitioners actually struggle to make the model work in practice. Whether Commons Clause is the right solution or not (and I have my opinion on that), at least the Redis people are trying something to fix the problem of unstustainabl…

They're just doing the open core model, with a tweak on the licensing of their proprietary add-ons to exclude cloud providers. I don't have a big problem with that, so long as there's a clear delineation between the open source and proprietary offerings. The only thing they're doing "differently" is the deceptive messaging. For this, I blame the Commons Clause initiative. Redis Labs could take these same actions unde…

I disagree that they’re “just doing the open core model”. Open Core typically is fully proprietary and provides no source access. The least proprietary open core product I can think of is RHEL, and the source they provide is heavily crippled: last I checked it’s basically a giant tarball of patches they throw over the wall every few years, with even more restrictive usage rules (try using the “Red Hat” trademark in your product and count the seconds before their legal department gives you a call). In comparison Commons Clause is very lax.

I get that Commons Clause does not meet the official definition of Open Source (which I believe they admit upfront), but it’s definitely different from “open core” and from whatever Red Hat calls their model. Since it’s something new, it seems reasonable to give it a new name. I don’t have any strong opinions about the name “Commons Clause, maybe there’s a better name for it, but I wouldn’t call this one deceptive.

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

#227

Post by int_19h »

mslipper wrote: post #224

I'm genuinely confused why there is so much backlash against the Commons Clause. Ignoring for a second the confusion around RedisLabs and its relationship with Redis core, the Commons Clause is setting out to solve the following problem with open source: - A person or company creates an open-source library, at great cost of time and effort. - A big company adds that library to their cloud offerings, at arguably far l…

Affero GPL is the license that purports to solve this problem. It's been around for a while, and it's getting some use, but I wouldn't call it popular.

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

#228

Post by ummonk »

binomialxenon wrote: post #123
wrs wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I’d agree, but in fact this post is not just criticism, it’s a demand for self-censorship. That is, stop talking about this, and don’t ever talk about it again. >The only solution is to bury the Common Clause project. Kill the website and GitHub repository, and we can try to forget this ever happened.

I don't think it's about censorship so much as it's thinking ahead and realizing how huge of a threat this clause could be towards free software. The author is (IMO, rightly) concerned about this and wants to limit how much damage is caused by it.

That's pretty much the driving force behind all censorship - thinking ahead and realizing how huge of a threat the information in question is.

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

#229

Post by int_19h »

kazinator wrote: post #55

It's just a "free-with-source for non-commercial use" distribution of certain modules that would otherwise be proprietary. There is nothing to see here, folks; "free-with-source for non-commercial use" has been a thing in the proprietary world for decades. It's like "free trial" or "freemium" with source code. It's a good thing for customers and would-be customers. Customers can track down bugs and security flaws if…

> There is nothing to see here, folks; "free-with-source for non-commercial use" has been a thing in the proprietary world for decades. It's like "free trial" or "freemium" with source code.

The problem is the definition of "commercial use" here, which is broader than most proprietary licenses, since it includes e.g. consulting.

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

#230

Post by geephroh »

platform wrote: post #209

CC should really be renamed to 'Corporate Continuation' (or abbreviation changed entirely). Commons Clause is misleading in the context of Open source licenses. On a separate note, it is important to address volunteer open source contribution and development. I think as a community we are missing a model that guides how : a) developers, b) their hosting organizations c) financial contributors / donors can all benefit…

> CC should really be renamed to 'Corporate Continuation' (or abbreviation changed entirely).

'Corporate Co-option' or 'Cash Capture' might also be appropriate...

Post reply on HN