7 ms·

Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis

Another problematic aspect of this is that to me the Redis situation seems like a corporate grab of open source software after the fact. By that I mean, Redis Labs are not the creators of Redis. They are a consulting agency that then hired the creator of Redis. In other words, they only exist because the original Redis was not Commons Clause. Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did. Not a good precedent.

fh973 8y ago
Fake news, according to the man himself: http://antirez.com/news/120 http://antirez.com/news/120 The whole thing is evidently not about Redis, but modules that were developed by Redis Labs.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  People need to stop using the term "fake news" it is more a meme at this point than constructive English. Even reading that statement and assuming the best intentions I can see why people would be upset/concerned. Redis has gone from Open Source to "Open Core" with some of the best modules now essentially paid for.
  - paganel 8y ago
    > People need to stop using the term "fake news" it is more a meme at this point than constructive English. Just yesterday the most powerful politician from my country (a EU and NATO member) said during a live interview on prime-time TV that George Soros had sent 4 men in order to assassinate him last year (spoiler alert: they didn't succeed, even though they had been checked-in at the local Hilton hotel). His right-hand man had an interview the day before that saying that the KGB (yes, the Russian KGB) had tried to recruit him (spoiler alert: apparently the Russians didn't succeed). All I want to say is that "fake news" is indeed a live and active concept, just trying to hide it under the rug won't bring back the former, saner times.
    - JackFr 8y ago
      I think you miss the point . Call a lie a lie, and don't trivialize it with the cute meme of the day.
      - paganel 8y ago
        > cute meme of the day. I don't think I'm missing anything, I'm afraid "fake news" is here to stay, is what propaganda was back in the 1920s and '30s. Calling it a "lie" means that the person saying the lie and those "receiving" it would change their views once the lie is "exposed", but under the current media and political climate I'm afraid that won't happen anymore, i.e. people will keep believing the "fake news" no matter if it would get "exposed" or not.
    - geofft 8y ago
      But that's not "fake news." That's a politician lying. No journalists were involved. And there were no former, saner times when politicians did not lie.
      - paganel 8y ago
        Both journalists who took those interviews were definitely involved, as in they didn't call out the bullsh*t.
- falcolas 8y ago
  That presumes that functionality of Redis is not subsequently moved into modules, and that new functionality is not only done in modules. The current development path does seem to favor modules - a slim core with the functionality added as modules.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    Reminds me of Databricks, the company founded by the Apache Spark creators. More and more of what they do is fully proprietary and at least one their previously OSS module is now proprietary (Redshift integration). They also boast of how much faster their cloud offering (running on top of AWS) is than other Spark cloud versions (running on top of AWS) which makes me suspect there's performance improvements that they're not open sourcing.
    - rectang 8y ago
      Since Spark is a project at Apache, though, if someone wants to contribute a Redshift integration module to Spark, no one cannot stop them. Projects at the ASF are governed by a Project Management Committee drawn from the wider community -- not a single company, not a steering committee where seats are bought. The ASF is a 501(c)(3) charity, which means that monetary contributions are tax-deductible and therefore very limited in what they can be used for. The ASF cannot unduly privilege any particular commercial entity. Credit to companies, like Databricks, who choose to participate in ASF projects under these constraints.
- vertere 8y ago
  Seems like a good case study in poor communication then. It doesn't excuse people spreading misinformation without a decent attempt to ascertain the facts, but it seems Redis Labs mainly have themselves to blame. Their page [0] starts out: "Initiated by a coalition of top infrastructure software companies to protect their rights...". So they're trying to make it sound like a Big Deal, and beyond just for Redis. Then later we hear 'oh it's just relicensing a couple of non-core modules, what are you all carrying on about?' Even now it's not clear to me (not being particularly familiar with Redis) what direction things are changing in. shakes head Edit: Oh, and the confusing name. Why is it called "Commons Clause"? [0] https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/
  - sqrt17 8y ago
    > Oh, and the confusing name. Why is it called "Commons Clause"? Exactly. What is in effect crossing the boundary between open source and shared source (as Microsoft called the first source release of the .Netruntime) is made to sound like an afterthought. So, instead of AGPL (widely recognized as off-limits for corporate users), you could claim it's "Apache plus Commons Clause" which sounds nice as long as you squint really hard. It's ok to put software under a BSD-inspired or Apache-inspired noncommercial-only license - in fact plenty of people are doing this already - but it's disingenuous to use the name of the open source license you took inspiration from in the hope to profit from the open source halo for non-open-source software.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did." Do you mean to say "can't use their stuff for free, but can do what they did if they want", i.e. a moat to absolutely prevent others from stuff is usually in IP etc. whereas restrictive licensing means you need to 'write it yourself' if you want it. Despite the conflation of early Redis and the corporate Redis - almost all commercial projects that use Open Source are the same thing really. ABC Corp. uses Open Source XYZ to make software and protects their addtions. It just so happens that in this case, it's Redis going into a commercial version of Redis, not Redis going into CAD software or something.
- beat 8y ago
  It's not like this is exactly new, either. See MySQL, for example.
mr_toad 8y ago
> corporate grab of open source software Well then fork them. I mean it. ‘Licenses applied to previous versions cannot be revoked’ - https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com My understanding (IANAL), is that only new code can be subjected to new conditions/licenses. Old code can still be used under the old license.
- simonh 8y ago
  Developer and volunteer time and attention is a finite resource though. Effort that was spent on open software that's now spent on proprietary software is less effort being spent on open source. Furthermore if you're now expending effort to fork something - in this case possibly many things - thats effort you're not spending on what used to be your higher priorities. Yes forking might in some cases be the only option, but it's not easy and it's not cost-free especially when the code is still available 'for free' (warning: many actual freedoms not included).
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    Nothing is free. There is no entitlement to benefiting from someone else's investment in software. I don't see why future Redis development or whatever can't be taken proprietary. Yes, you could make a license that precludes it, but if you insist on copyright assignment then you'll always get the right to re-license anyways.
    - simonh 8y ago
      I understand nothing is free. Creators and owners can license their software however they please. Their freedom to do so is not what is under discussion here. The vast majority of the code I’ve ever written was proprietary, but I’m very proud of the roughly 10k lines that is open source. We’re just having a debate about pros, cons and possible consequences, which I think is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    It might be worth collectively paying someone else to do it.
igol 8y ago
That is part of the right you grant people when you use a permissive license. That is the whole point of the license being permissive.
driverdan 8y ago
You seem to be misunderstanding which Redis projects are changing licenses. Redis is not changing. Some of Redis Labs' extensions are. While I agree this is highly problematic it's not changing the core software's license.
cryptonector 8y ago
Precedent? This precedent has been set long ago. E.g., Microsoft (for one example) used BSD code in Windows in a proprietary way. There aren't very many prominent cases like this because software is hard to monetize, whether it be open source or proprietary. I don't see the problem with proprietary forks of open source whose license allows it, and when it's the original creator who pulls it off then I say good for them. When I choose to use BSD or MIT licensing, I do it because a) I don't expect to monetize that code, b) I don't mind if someone else figures out a way to monetize that code -- this is a willful, eyes-wide-open choice on my part. I wouldn't recommend always using any one license; instead I recommend picking a license for each codebase according to whether you want to allow third parties to monetize or whether you want to prevent proprietary forks. There is no one-size-fits all license.
hinkley 8y ago
Sounds like corporatism to me. Change the rules so nobody else can follow you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

fh973 8y ago

Fake news, according to the man himself: http://antirez.com/news/120 http://antirez.com/news/120 The whole thing is evidently not about Redis, but modules that were developed by Redis Labs.

Someone1234 8y ago
People need to stop using the term "fake news" it is more a meme at this point than constructive English. Even reading that statement and assuming the best intentions I can see why people would be upset/concerned. Redis has gone from Open Source to "Open Core" with some of the best modules now essentially paid for.
- paganel 8y ago
  > People need to stop using the term "fake news" it is more a meme at this point than constructive English. Just yesterday the most powerful politician from my country (a EU and NATO member) said during a live interview on prime-time TV that George Soros had sent 4 men in order to assassinate him last year (spoiler alert: they didn't succeed, even though they had been checked-in at the local Hilton hotel). His right-hand man had an interview the day before that saying that the KGB (yes, the Russian KGB) had tried to recruit him (spoiler alert: apparently the Russians didn't succeed). All I want to say is that "fake news" is indeed a live and active concept, just trying to hide it under the rug won't bring back the former, saner times.
  - JackFr 8y ago
    I think you miss the point . Call a lie a lie, and don't trivialize it with the cute meme of the day.
    - paganel 8y ago
      > cute meme of the day. I don't think I'm missing anything, I'm afraid "fake news" is here to stay, is what propaganda was back in the 1920s and '30s. Calling it a "lie" means that the person saying the lie and those "receiving" it would change their views once the lie is "exposed", but under the current media and political climate I'm afraid that won't happen anymore, i.e. people will keep believing the "fake news" no matter if it would get "exposed" or not.
  - geofft 8y ago
    But that's not "fake news." That's a politician lying. No journalists were involved. And there were no former, saner times when politicians did not lie.
    - paganel 8y ago
      Both journalists who took those interviews were definitely involved, as in they didn't call out the bullsh*t.
falcolas 8y ago
That presumes that functionality of Redis is not subsequently moved into modules, and that new functionality is not only done in modules. The current development path does seem to favor modules - a slim core with the functionality added as modules.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  Reminds me of Databricks, the company founded by the Apache Spark creators. More and more of what they do is fully proprietary and at least one their previously OSS module is now proprietary (Redshift integration). They also boast of how much faster their cloud offering (running on top of AWS) is than other Spark cloud versions (running on top of AWS) which makes me suspect there's performance improvements that they're not open sourcing.
  - rectang 8y ago
    Since Spark is a project at Apache, though, if someone wants to contribute a Redshift integration module to Spark, no one cannot stop them. Projects at the ASF are governed by a Project Management Committee drawn from the wider community -- not a single company, not a steering committee where seats are bought. The ASF is a 501(c)(3) charity, which means that monetary contributions are tax-deductible and therefore very limited in what they can be used for. The ASF cannot unduly privilege any particular commercial entity. Credit to companies, like Databricks, who choose to participate in ASF projects under these constraints.
vertere 8y ago
Seems like a good case study in poor communication then. It doesn't excuse people spreading misinformation without a decent attempt to ascertain the facts, but it seems Redis Labs mainly have themselves to blame. Their page [0] starts out: "Initiated by a coalition of top infrastructure software companies to protect their rights...". So they're trying to make it sound like a Big Deal, and beyond just for Redis. Then later we hear 'oh it's just relicensing a couple of non-core modules, what are you all carrying on about?' Even now it's not clear to me (not being particularly familiar with Redis) what direction things are changing in. shakes head Edit: Oh, and the confusing name. Why is it called "Commons Clause"? [0] https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/
- sqrt17 8y ago
  > Oh, and the confusing name. Why is it called "Commons Clause"? Exactly. What is in effect crossing the boundary between open source and shared source (as Microsoft called the first source release of the .Netruntime) is made to sound like an afterthought. So, instead of AGPL (widely recognized as off-limits for corporate users), you could claim it's "Apache plus Commons Clause" which sounds nice as long as you squint really hard. It's ok to put software under a BSD-inspired or Apache-inspired noncommercial-only license - in fact plenty of people are doing this already - but it's disingenuous to use the name of the open source license you took inspiration from in the hope to profit from the open source halo for non-open-source software.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"Now they want to build a moat so others can't do what they did." Do you mean to say "can't use their stuff for free, but can do what they did if they want", i.e. a moat to absolutely prevent others from stuff is usually in IP etc. whereas restrictive licensing means you need to 'write it yourself' if you want it. Despite the conflation of early Redis and the corporate Redis - almost all commercial projects that use Open Source are the same thing really. ABC Corp. uses Open Source XYZ to make software and protects their addtions. It just so happens that in this case, it's Redis going into a commercial version of Redis, not Redis going into CAD software or something.

beat 8y ago
It's not like this is exactly new, either. See MySQL, for example.

mr_toad 8y ago

> corporate grab of open source software Well then fork them. I mean it. ‘Licenses applied to previous versions cannot be revoked’ - https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com My understanding (IANAL), is that only new code can be subjected to new conditions/licenses. Old code can still be used under the old license.

simonh 8y ago
Developer and volunteer time and attention is a finite resource though. Effort that was spent on open software that's now spent on proprietary software is less effort being spent on open source. Furthermore if you're now expending effort to fork something - in this case possibly many things - thats effort you're not spending on what used to be your higher priorities. Yes forking might in some cases be the only option, but it's not easy and it's not cost-free especially when the code is still available 'for free' (warning: many actual freedoms not included).
- cryptonector 8y ago
  Nothing is free. There is no entitlement to benefiting from someone else's investment in software. I don't see why future Redis development or whatever can't be taken proprietary. Yes, you could make a license that precludes it, but if you insist on copyright assignment then you'll always get the right to re-license anyways.
  - simonh 8y ago
    I understand nothing is free. Creators and owners can license their software however they please. Their freedom to do so is not what is under discussion here. The vast majority of the code I’ve ever written was proprietary, but I’m very proud of the roughly 10k lines that is open source. We’re just having a debate about pros, cons and possible consequences, which I think is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  It might be worth collectively paying someone else to do it.

igol 8y ago

That is part of the right you grant people when you use a permissive license. That is the whole point of the license being permissive.

driverdan 8y ago

You seem to be misunderstanding which Redis projects are changing licenses. Redis is not changing. Some of Redis Labs' extensions are. While I agree this is highly problematic it's not changing the core software's license.

cryptonector 8y ago

Precedent? This precedent has been set long ago. E.g., Microsoft (for one example) used BSD code in Windows in a proprietary way. There aren't very many prominent cases like this because software is hard to monetize, whether it be open source or proprietary. I don't see the problem with proprietary forks of open source whose license allows it, and when it's the original creator who pulls it off then I say good for them. When I choose to use BSD or MIT licensing, I do it because a) I don't expect to monetize that code, b) I don't mind if someone else figures out a way to monetize that code -- this is a willful, eyes-wide-open choice on my part. I wouldn't recommend always using any one license; instead I recommend picking a license for each codebase according to whether you want to allow third parties to monetize or whether you want to prevent proprietary forks. There is no one-size-fits all license.

hinkley 8y ago

Sounds like corporatism to me. Change the rules so nobody else can follow you.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]