4 ms·
> whatever problem it is that the Commons Clause is intended to address I'm pretty sure that problem is that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others have hosted
by thayne 8y ago
> whatever problem it is that the Commons Clause is intended to address
I'm pretty sure that problem is that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others have hosted Redis solutions, and even if they do contribute some code, they are undoubtedly making significant profit off of Redis, of which RedisLabs sees little if any. And since these companies have an oligopoly on cloud hosting, it is very difficult for RedisLabs to compete with these hosted solutions directly.
I know that Elastic has had similar issues.
I'm curious what better solutions you would have suggested would be. Clearly such solutions are not widely known among companies that produce open source software. https://opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php https://opensource.org/advocacy/case_for_business.php has a couple of paragraphs on how to monetize open source projects , but maybe OSI should publish more detailed strategies, as well as case studies of what has worked for different kinds of products, and what hasn't worked.
I don't love the Commons Clause, but I do understand the prbolem it is trying to solve. Maybe, (hopefully) all this backlash will lead to a better solution for RedisLabs and similar companies.
One last note: Perfect can be the enemy of good. Apache with Commons Clause might not be as good as the Apache 2 license, but it's still better than completely proprietary with no access to source. Perhaps the Commons Clause will be used (as it seems to be with Redis) for open-core style business models, where the core is under a more open OSI-approved license, but enterprise add-ons are licensed with the Commons Clause (or perhaps dual licensed) rather than the usual propriatary only license.
- youwishboye 8y agoOh no, companies make monies off of software provided to them for free even though said software didn't prohibit anyone from making money with it!
- oblio 8y ago> I'm curious what better solutions you would have suggested would be. Dual licensing as commercial and AGPL.
- thayne 8y agoMaybe I'm missing something, but how would AGPL protect Redis from cloud providers? The competitive advantage of aws, azure, and gcp comes from the ecosystem and available hardware, not from any modification or addition to the product.
- Nemo_bis 8y agoAnd what level of integration makes an "addition to the product"? The problem is where you draw the line.
- Xylakant 8y ago> I know that Elastic has had similar issues They chose a much more straightforward solution: some addons are clearly marked as commercial. No weasel words. We can debate whether the featureset of the core product vs. addons is a good one, but at least the message is clear. With this situation that redis got themselves into, the situation is much less clear.
- thayne 8y ago> No weasel words. What weasel words? They don't claim their license is FOSS. They do admit they are trying to make money. The wording of the license is a little vague, but I think the intent is pretty clear.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Xylakant 8y agoThey call it “common” and “open source plus extra strings.” The extra license on the face mentions that consulting and support is no longer a viable business. I have no problem with the fact that redis labs decided to make some extended features commercial. They’re entitled to do that and I wish them well, they deserve to earn money from their hard work. I have major issues with the way they’re communicating that decision.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I'm pretty sure that problem is that Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others have hosted Redis solutions, and even if they do contribute some code, they are undoubtedly making significant profit off of Redis, of which RedisLabs sees little if any. I think RedisLabs is going to be disappointed if they think making certain enterprise modules proprietary going forward is going to change that dynamic in a way which positively impacts their bottom line in the long term. While, sure, if everything remains he same except big cloud vendors pay some share of their revenue to RedisLabs for the use of those modules, that will be great for RedisLabs, I don't think that's the most likely outcome: forks (especially dangerous, a dominant single community fork with support from multiple cloud vendors and a broader community of contributors than the now-proprietary first-party version) from the last open version become a threat, as does lack of uptake of the affected modules and Redis in general by downstream developers, cloud providers, and end users, with people being driven to alternative solutions to the business problem.