4 ms·

> Can you explain the thought process with regards to why it's okay for you to receive compensation for your efforts, but not the OSS developer who invested sig

> Can you explain the thought process with regards to why it's okay for you to receive compensation for your efforts, but not the OSS developer who invested significantly more time (nine years, in the case of Redis) in creating the product? The consultant isn't selling the product; they're selling a complement to the product: knowledge of how to use the product effectively in the client's circumstances. But complementary goods don't substitute for each other. Paying a consultant for Redis expertise doesn't buy you the functionality of Redis itself. So if Redislabs deserves to be the only Redis consultancy in existence, the argument has to be that not only do they deserve the exclusive right to profit from the sale of their intellectual property, they also deserve an exclusive right to profit from other people's expertise with their product. But why should anyone accept that? They might be within their legal rights to impose such a condition in a license (IANAL), but there's not a strong ethical justification for the position.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I agree that their approach to restricting consulting is...unconventional, but I support their legal right to do so. Their code, their rules.
- unimpressive 8y ago
  This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. "You have the right to create your own operating system" is not a take that would be supported by any serious analysis seeking fairness for both parties.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    > This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. Your issue is not with my attitude, it is with copyright law and property rights. Someone's right to license their software any way they see fit is not "toxic". You take issue to an erosion of rights that do not exist, and your participation in an ecosystem is voluntary. At it's core, you are demanding the ability to govern your use of property that is not yours. EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse.
    - unimpressive 8y ago
      Laws reflect attitudes, supporting unjust laws with your opinion sustains them. So yes, my issue is with your attitude. EDIT: Since you've edited your comment to elaborate I'll respond in kind: If by default I have the legal right to reverse engineer your software, and you can strip this from me with a 'contract' that amounts to a checkbox with text that nobody reads and therefore has no marginal cost to add enforceable boilerplate to, that is a basic perversion of the intent of contract law. Contract laws start from the premise that a contract should protect both parties. One sided contracts are in general antithetical to the goals of contract law: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-unconscionable-contract.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-un... A boilerplate click through disclaimer should not be able to prevent me from taking actions that the vendor finds inconvenient but are otherwise legal and nonviolent. EDIT 2: To clarify, the portion cited as an "edit" above: "EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse. " Was not the full extent of editing of the parent comment, which had significant text added between me replying and its present state.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

toomuchtodo 8y ago

I agree that their approach to restricting consulting is...unconventional, but I support their legal right to do so. Their code, their rules.

unimpressive 8y ago
This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. "You have the right to create your own operating system" is not a take that would be supported by any serious analysis seeking fairness for both parties.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > This attitude is how you get silliness like the idea that I can be prevented from reverse engineering software by an impersonal EULA. It's blanket permission to erode the rights of people who are in practice forced to comply with toxic aspects of an ecosystem. Your issue is not with my attitude, it is with copyright law and property rights. Someone's right to license their software any way they see fit is not "toxic". You take issue to an erosion of rights that do not exist, and your participation in an ecosystem is voluntary. At it's core, you are demanding the ability to govern your use of property that is not yours. EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse.
  - unimpressive 8y ago
    Laws reflect attitudes, supporting unjust laws with your opinion sustains them. So yes, my issue is with your attitude. EDIT: Since you've edited your comment to elaborate I'll respond in kind: If by default I have the legal right to reverse engineer your software, and you can strip this from me with a 'contract' that amounts to a checkbox with text that nobody reads and therefore has no marginal cost to add enforceable boilerplate to, that is a basic perversion of the intent of contract law. Contract laws start from the premise that a contract should protect both parties. One sided contracts are in general antithetical to the goals of contract law: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-unconscionable-contract.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-an-un... A boilerplate click through disclaimer should not be able to prevent me from taking actions that the vendor finds inconvenient but are otherwise legal and nonviolent. EDIT 2: To clarify, the portion cited as an "edit" above: "EDIT: I don't believe the law to be unjust as to how it relates to copyright, code ownership, and licensing. We've reached an impasse. " Was not the full extent of editing of the parent comment, which had significant text added between me replying and its present state.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]