45 ms·

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you na

As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense (it meets no definition of open source/free software/DFSG/you name it). No restrictions on fields of endeavor and no discrimination is a pretty basic tenent that goes back a long long time (the DFSG were published in 1997, there are other things saying the same thing that pre-date it). I also know this is what other open source lawyers are saying as well (in fact, i haven't seen one who believes it is anything else). I'm sure you can make up another word other than "proprietary" to call it, but ... As for questions: The main commons clause page makes the claim "Initiated by a coalition of top infrastructure software companies to protect their rights" Care to list them? Additionally, even ignoring the significant vagueness in the clause, there are plenty of combinations of licenses with which this clause makes literally no sense. It seems there is no guide or policing of these. Truthfully, this all does not feel well thought out. Who actually participated in the drafting? Here is one that exists in practice: neo4j is commons clause + AGPLv3 AGPLv3 section 7: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. ... GPLv3 is identical in this respect, and LGPLv3 is a set of permissions on top of GPLV3 that does not revoke this clause. This seems to make commons clause incompatible with a lot of software.

john-mark 8y ago
There is a very bizarre story behind Neo4j Inc's behavior and what lead to them adding the commons clause to the enterprise AGPL license. They seem to be ready to go closed source, which they should have just done in the first place instead of behaving like they did. Adding the commons clause is just the tip of the iceberg - there is a very entertaining story behind everything that is happening. A single person, not a huge corporation, is behind this. I will write a blog post about what happened/is happening in the upcoming months - complete with supporting documents such as FOIA requests, etc.
mchahn 8y ago
I've never heard of an open-source lawyer. I understand totally how valuable it is to litigate open-source issues, but I'm curious as to who pays for such services? Being able to pay lawyers seems unlikely for a free product.
- i_have_to_speak 8y ago
  You might want to start here: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/
- rectang 8y ago
  It's just a lawyer who is conversant with issues surrounding software under open source licenses.
- theyinwhy 8y ago
  As real world application of open source licenses is rather complex (I would say: A nightmare) you definitely should consult a lawyer if you want to put sth. Open Source. Btw. it gets even more complex if you think about application under local laws of multiple countries.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Any company that either uses open source code or releases open source code needs competent advice. Asking for such advice from a lawyer unfamiliar with open source is probably pretty expensive.
- ZiiS 8y ago
  10 out of 10 of the largest tech firms in the world release significant opensource software: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Alibaba, Intel, Oracle, Samsung and Baidu. They turnover more then $1 trillion and use many lawyers.
pvg 8y ago
The FAQ at https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com says it was drafted by Heather Meeker.
- DannyBee 8y ago
  (the FAQ was added after I posted) That's worse because Heather would have certainly warned them of these issues, and it means they did it anyway.
  - pvg 8y ago
    I'm guessing she's a well-known practitioner in this field. Why would one be involved in such a thing, given it's so problematic? The whole thing seems super-confusing and half-baked.
    - DannyBee 8y ago
      Yes, Heather is very well known and very smart. She's a hired gun (with no offense meant). She is neither good nor bad IMHO. Though depending on your viewpoint, she's lawful neutral, true neutral, or chaotic neutral :P. She has both defended accused open source license violators and helped open source foundations defend against baseless lawsuits. Given how long she has been doing this, I would simply not believe that she missed any of the issues I mentioned (the ambiguity, the AGPL/GPL/etc issues). She's too good to have not advised them of these issues, and in fact, also probably advised them that the kind of response you have seen in this thread is a high probability. But like any lawyer, when she is paid to advise, she advises. What people do with that advice is up to them.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Thanks, that makes sense. It seems like an awful lot of effort to put into such a transparent (even without the legal issues) and pointless bit of dissembling. Lots of people plainly sell open source + proprietary parts products without much fuss from anyone.
      - 8y ago
CharlesW 8y ago
> As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense… TFA plainly says that it isn't, "at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD." > I'm sure you can make up another word other than "proprietary" to call it… TFA also answers this: > "Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to 'source-available'."
- DannyBee 8y ago
  I was clearly replying to the claim made that this doesn't make redis proprietary. As I said, they just made up a new word for their version of proprietary. Also, the FAQ was added after I posted. Look at GitHub commits :)
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    I understood the claim as saying that redis itself isn't using the commons clause, and that it's only some enterprise redis modules that are adding the clause to their license.
  - slavak 8y ago
    But this _doesn't_ make Redis proprietary, because Redis is and will always remain BSD-licensed, THAT is what the claim you're referring to is talking about.
kemitchell 8y ago
The appeal to authority is to whatever authority OSI, Debian, or FSF may have, not to legal authority. Licensing lawyers often know those definitions, or at least know of them. But they're terms of branding, terms of politics, not legal terms of art, and not strong trade or service marks. Granted, I think it's safe to say Commons Clause wouldn't meet the old definitions you mentioned, or please the people who wrote them. But I don't think it's my place, as a lawyer, to tell coders what "open source" should mean. As for the old definitions, I've consistently overestimated how much devs care. Frankly, I've overestimated definitions focusing on license terms as a general proposition. Partly as a result, I've reassessed how I channel those projects, and my desire to belong among those invested in them, through my practice. Clients assume what I say is legally grounded. My job is to hear them and help them. Not to cite them under someone else's client's PR program, or scare them straight with the hiss of a hot "proprietary" brand.
- rectang 8y ago
  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.
  - dman 8y ago
    Dont think this is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. Multiple database companies with excellent products (Rethinkdb et al) have faced significant challenges commercializing software that is open source. We need credible monetization strategies for building infrastructure level open source software. I do not fully agree with the Commons clause implementation, but I understand the need for it to exist and welcome efforts in this area. DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.
    - 8y ago
kjeetgill 8y ago
I think you're misreading the parent. They are not claiming that the Commons Clause is open source in any way. They're claiming that the portions being moved to the Commons Clause are not "Redis" but rather, some "enterprise modules". > 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It's only some enterprise modules. The Commons Clause is mostly used to temporarily transition enterprise offering counterparts of OSS projects to source-available. Redis itself remains under BSD. From the article: > The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.” I think the parent agrees with you, explicitly referring to those modules as "proprietary" and "source available".
- icc97 8y ago
  Yes, further from the article: > Therefore, the no-sale restriction imposed by Commons Clause means that any software under this new license is non-open source by definition.

john-mark 8y ago

There is a very bizarre story behind Neo4j Inc's behavior and what lead to them adding the commons clause to the enterprise AGPL license. They seem to be ready to go closed source, which they should have just done in the first place instead of behaving like they did. Adding the commons clause is just the tip of the iceberg - there is a very entertaining story behind everything that is happening. A single person, not a huge corporation, is behind this. I will write a blog post about what happened/is happening in the upcoming months - complete with supporting documents such as FOIA requests, etc.

mchahn 8y ago

I've never heard of an open-source lawyer. I understand totally how valuable it is to litigate open-source issues, but I'm curious as to who pays for such services? Being able to pay lawyers seems unlikely for a free product.

i_have_to_speak 8y ago
You might want to start here: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/
rectang 8y ago
It's just a lawyer who is conversant with issues surrounding software under open source licenses.
theyinwhy 8y ago
As real world application of open source licenses is rather complex (I would say: A nightmare) you definitely should consult a lawyer if you want to put sth. Open Source. Btw. it gets even more complex if you think about application under local laws of multiple countries.
greglindahl 8y ago
Any company that either uses open source code or releases open source code needs competent advice. Asking for such advice from a lawyer unfamiliar with open source is probably pretty expensive.
ZiiS 8y ago
10 out of 10 of the largest tech firms in the world release significant opensource software: Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Alibaba, Intel, Oracle, Samsung and Baidu. They turnover more then $1 trillion and use many lawyers.

pvg 8y ago

The FAQ at https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com says it was drafted by Heather Meeker.

DannyBee 8y ago
(the FAQ was added after I posted) That's worse because Heather would have certainly warned them of these issues, and it means they did it anyway.
- pvg 8y ago
  I'm guessing she's a well-known practitioner in this field. Why would one be involved in such a thing, given it's so problematic? The whole thing seems super-confusing and half-baked.
  - DannyBee 8y ago
    Yes, Heather is very well known and very smart. She's a hired gun (with no offense meant). She is neither good nor bad IMHO. Though depending on your viewpoint, she's lawful neutral, true neutral, or chaotic neutral :P. She has both defended accused open source license violators and helped open source foundations defend against baseless lawsuits. Given how long she has been doing this, I would simply not believe that she missed any of the issues I mentioned (the ambiguity, the AGPL/GPL/etc issues). She's too good to have not advised them of these issues, and in fact, also probably advised them that the kind of response you have seen in this thread is a high probability. But like any lawyer, when she is paid to advise, she advises. What people do with that advice is up to them.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Thanks, that makes sense. It seems like an awful lot of effort to put into such a transparent (even without the legal issues) and pointless bit of dissembling. Lots of people plainly sell open source + proprietary parts products without much fuss from anyone.
    - 8y ago

CharlesW 8y ago

> As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense… TFA plainly says that it isn't, "at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD." > I'm sure you can make up another word other than "proprietary" to call it… TFA also answers this: > "Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to 'source-available'."

DannyBee 8y ago
I was clearly replying to the claim made that this doesn't make redis proprietary. As I said, they just made up a new word for their version of proprietary. Also, the FAQ was added after I posted. Look at GitHub commits :)
- LukeShu 8y ago
  I understood the claim as saying that redis itself isn't using the commons clause, and that it's only some enterprise redis modules that are adding the clause to their license.
- slavak 8y ago
  But this _doesn't_ make Redis proprietary, because Redis is and will always remain BSD-licensed, THAT is what the claim you're referring to is talking about.

kemitchell 8y ago

The appeal to authority is to whatever authority OSI, Debian, or FSF may have, not to legal authority. Licensing lawyers often know those definitions, or at least know of them. But they're terms of branding, terms of politics, not legal terms of art, and not strong trade or service marks. Granted, I think it's safe to say Commons Clause wouldn't meet the old definitions you mentioned, or please the people who wrote them. But I don't think it's my place, as a lawyer, to tell coders what "open source" should mean. As for the old definitions, I've consistently overestimated how much devs care. Frankly, I've overestimated definitions focusing on license terms as a general proposition. Partly as a result, I've reassessed how I channel those projects, and my desire to belong among those invested in them, through my practice. Clients assume what I say is legally grounded. My job is to hear them and help them. Not to cite them under someone else's client's PR program, or scare them straight with the hiss of a hot "proprietary" brand.

rectang 8y ago
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.
- dman 8y ago
  Dont think this is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. Multiple database companies with excellent products (Rethinkdb et al) have faced significant challenges commercializing software that is open source. We need credible monetization strategies for building infrastructure level open source software. I do not fully agree with the Commons clause implementation, but I understand the need for it to exist and welcome efforts in this area. DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.
  - 8y ago

kjeetgill 8y ago

I think you're misreading the parent. They are not claiming that the Commons Clause is open source in any way. They're claiming that the portions being moved to the Commons Clause are not "Redis" but rather, some "enterprise modules". > 1/ No, Redis isn't proprietary. It's only some enterprise modules. The Commons Clause is mostly used to temporarily transition enterprise offering counterparts of OSS projects to source-available. Redis itself remains under BSD. From the article: > The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.” I think the parent agrees with you, explicitly referring to those modules as "proprietary" and "source available".

icc97 8y ago
Yes, further from the article: > Therefore, the no-sale restriction imposed by Commons Clause means that any software under this new license is non-open source by definition.