It's not okay to pretend your software is open source

What an empty, ranting, and rage-fueled post.

>They’re in for a long wait - we’re not going to forget about shady, dishonest, and unethical companies like Redis Labs.

We also won't forget about how you've harassed so many people throughout the years Mr. Drew DeVault. Are you going to add antirez (or anteriz as you call him) to that list?

If you don't like software with these new style licenses, then don't use software with these new style licenses. Explain what it is that apparently so deeply violates your right to exist, but puritanical screaming and finger-pointing black & white contrasts never really convinces people of anything. All these rants are lame.

The best comment I've heard so far w.r.t. CC is how it complicates acquisition of software by businesses. That's a hugely legit complaint -- but the same complaint applied to the GPL not more than 2 decades ago. Companies adjusted before, assuming value exists in this new breed of license, they'll adjust again.

Meanwhile as a free software author, I'm very happy to see smaller companies experimenting with methods to protect their work in whatever way they see fit. Hopefully something "socially acceptable" comes from all this that might be useful to me at some stage in future.

Finally it's worth remembering that there is a HUGE degree of freedom to explore between closed source, pay-only software and free software as we have it today. I have yet to see a recent example of a license that removes what for me is the greatest benefit of all: the ability to fix and debug things without opening a ticket. Fundamentalist shouting matches erupting every time someone tries something new reminds me of another modern debate - religion, and like there, the loudest and most annoying rarely have meaningful new information to share

----

There is another angle that seems very interesting. Industry consolidation and typical policy within large companies towards employees working on free software ("you can't unless it's approved & we own copyright") means 'the movement' that existed in the 90s is all but dead and gone. Any big real development that happens in the open typically happens because some employer is explicitly paying an employee to advance their agenda through technical means (see e.g. Kubernetes).

To me, a new license that not only incentivized but made practical and sustainable large software projects independent of those large consolidated employers is far more valuable than not having to toss a few dimes in the pot if that software is used in some circumstances where profit is made.

He should have been linked to one repo to have some context. Is the commons clause limited to the project itself or can I still sell my software using a library with a commons clause?

These are brownies, but they happen to contain a bit of horse shit. Not a lot, it's just like a tiny sprinkling on top, but they are definitely still brownies!

You can't make a substantive change to a license and pretend it's a small deal. You can't hijack core tenants of a license, and then just put a little disclaimer at the bottom. "Buy one get one half off! *The one half off is actually just a plastic model and doesn't do anything"

Abusing FOSS licenses to try and control your users software while still using their claim strikes me as pretty bad faith. If you want to use a dual license, that's fine - just do that. "Hey, you can use this for free if you don't make any money, but we want 10% if you're using this in a paid product" -> See? Done, easy, nobody upset. Don't pretend "Hey, this is open source, except it isn't, and please give me your money."

His problem with them is in the title of the post. If you want to do something that is non-free, don't call it open source or free software, both words have accepted definitions, by osi and fsf/gnu respectively. Your reply is entirely off-topic.