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

Commons Clause

redislabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 496 posts

Re: Commons Clause

#401

Post by nine_k »

yebyen wrote: post #381
another-cuppa wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that? Linux is the most widely used operating system in the world and it's licensed under GPL. People don't choose not to use software because it's GPL. Why would they?

You're mistaken. (Well, maybe not mistaken if I read exactly what you said literally, but people/companies most certainly do choose not to use GPL software if they're looking to build a system that they can exploit for profit-making purposes.) It takes a very forward-thinking person to understand that they have more to gain from the thousands of eyes and the support of the community, than from a paywall that gates ac…

Would we have Android today were it not for GPLv2 and Linux licensed under it?

But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.

Re: Commons Clause

#402

Post by nine_k »

pjc50 wrote: post #314
rplnt wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.

Open-source or closed source projects? As discussed upthread, avoiding being used in closed source projects is the entire purpose of the GPL.

Rather, being _embedded_ into a closed-source project, making a closed-source derivative work.

You can of course compose your system of closed-source and GPL'd parts, as long as GPL'd parts are separate, and remain open.

Re: Commons Clause

#403

Post by falcolas »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #383
filmor wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook got hate for making the patent grant skewed, i.e. you have no right to sue them for /any/ patent of yours that they use in return for not being sued for the /specific/ patents that cover React etc.

Are those clauses even enforceable?

When the only way to find out is to incur legal fees sufficient to put most small companies out of business, does it matter if it's enforceable?

Re: Commons Clause

#404

Post by shadowmint »

rplnt wrote: post #311
another-cuppa wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.

It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.

tisk tisk, so many downvotes and knee jerk reactions, but this is pragmatically correct.

GPL is unpopular, and if you want people to use your software, it is the wrong license to choose.

Should it be? Perhaps not. ...but I don't think the parent comment is nearly as wrong as people seem to think.

It doesn't matter if the GPL technically is a better or worse license; the fact is that (perhaps indeed driven by large corporations) GPL has a very negative image right now, and since we do live in a 'look at my popular github repo with oh so many stars, aren't I popular, oh btw hire me pls' world now, that is actually a big deal.

The question is not, 'should I use GPL?', because the answer is no, if you want to have a successful popular open source project.

The question is; how do we actually change the perception of GPL so the answer becomes yes?

I'm not sure... but I think it's a far more important question.

(I can certainly say that I no longer use the GPL, after using it for many years, largely because it was requested I remove it from projects. What do you do in that situation? Since I really don't care that much why not just put it under something else? I don't have a good answer.)

Re: Commons Clause

#405

Post by [deleted] »

rplnt wrote: post #311
another-cuppa wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really sad that the GPL has essentially "gone out of fashion". It's sad that developers would be driven merely by fashion rather than careful consideration. The fact that we have free software at all is largely thanks to the GNU and the GPL.

It's not just fashion. It's a question of "Do I want someone to use my software?", because with GPL the answer would be no for a lot of projects.

[deleted]

Re: Commons Clause

#406

Post by nine_k »

dragonwriter wrote: post #317
tannhaeuser wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. Maybe it's time to reconsider in times of cloud oligopoles. Because why would you want your software become part of the lock-in strategy of a cloud provider.

> There's the reflex (here and elsewhere) to dismiss reciprocal licenses such as GPL, AGPL as "uncool", pretentious, and show-stopping. They aren't uncool, they just have terms that lots of people have good reasons not to want to deal with, and which many devs don't want to impose on downstream (in part because lots of people don't want to deal with them.)

Who are those people that don't want to deal with a reciprocal license?

Are they paying customers? Good, GPL and commercial dual-licensing is a thing, and thank them for their business!

Are they people who would like to just use the software for their benefit, modify it to their taste and distribute, and keep the improvements concealed from everyone who made it possible? Tough luck, nobody promised them a free ride like that. They're still free to run unmodified GPL'd software.

Is there a third kind that I fail to recognize?

(Edit: added "and distribute".)

Re: Commons Clause

#407

Post by icebraining »

kemitchell wrote: post #238
rectang wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Open Source ecosystem rests on top of the OSI definition of "Open Source". Those with an interest in preserving the meaning of "Open Source" are broad, numerous and diverse; those with an interest in subverting it to confuse "open source" with "source available" are few, and destructive.

Some experiences of open source rest on the OSD, but not all. If your experience does, that doesn't invalidate your experience. But your experience doesn't invalidate others', either. Browbeat or excommunicate all the heretics, I think you'll find yourself preaching to a much smaller choir. Granted: OSD, or rather the OSI-approved license list, rules in enterprise procurement at a particular and fairly common level o…

What's the point of preaching to a larger choir, if they don't speak the same language? You're just straining your voice in vain.

HESSLA and Fair Source both clearly state they are not open source, so I don't see how they go against rectang's point; the problem is not the existence of different models, but muddling the language to conflate them with the preceding one. That's essentially an EEE attack, and it's no wonder that existing OSS developers refuse to participate in it.

Re: Commons Clause

#408

Post by eloff »

vmbrasseur wrote: post #231
eloff wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is clearly intended to address the problem of how to build a viable business around open source software. Something open source doesn't address. Having a profitable company driving the development of an open source project is not a hard requirement, but it almost is. The difference is night and day in results. Any puritan approach that considers only the open source ideals, is quite frankly out of touch with reality.…

Open source has no place addressing the question of business model, as open source is about what people can do with the SOFTWARE. It removes the barriers to creating a business around that software, and that's where its concerns with business stop (and always have). It's up to the owners of that business to learn how to RUN a business. In summary: "Open source" is not a business model and is not concerned with them.…

That's a regrettable attitude, because if open-source cannot address how it integrates as part of a profitable business, people will move away from open-source towards source-visible proprietary licenses. Like you're seeing here. It's in the best interests of the whole open-source community to take a proactive approach here and actually address the problems.

Specifically the problem of multi-billion dollar companies profiting from open-source software without giving anything back in a parasitic relationship.

Nothing exists in isolation, and open-source isn't a magical exception to that.

Re: Commons Clause

#409

Post by marcinzm »

catwell wrote: post #324
marcinzm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For how long is the question to me, per the blog post: >Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Doesn't seem like having Redis core contain enough useful functionality and staying BSD lines up with their vision.

They don't get to choose. They don't own the copyright on Redis, Salvatore does. He is their employee now but if they try to pull something like this I suspect he won't be for long.

Based on this interview from 2016 Salvatore agrees with the issues of BSD and cloud vendors so he may be a lot more amenable to a license change than you suspect: https://venturebeat.com/2016/06/19/redis-creator/

>But now, for the first time, GPL could be interesting again because of the cloud vendors. Because with BSD, cloud vendors are able to extract a lot of value from an open-source project, to the point of making it very hard for the project’s initial creators to make a business out of it. Let’s call it the “AWS problem.” The AWS problem, technically, could be enough in some way to create problems for the whole open-source ecosystem. Now people know that if they start an open-source project and put a lot of effort into it, they could be marginalized by AWS. That could mean that GPL would return again as the primary license for open-source software in the future.

Re: Commons Clause

#410

Post by logophobia »

Gotta say, stuff like this is getting a bit more common. Last month while I was evaluating choices for an application gateway I saw that:

* Ngnix has an enterprise version

* Kong has an enterprise version

* HAProxy has an enterprise version

Now redis as well, even if the commons license isn't quite as bad, it's a step back. It's understandable, but all a bit disappointing.

Post reply on HN