5 ms·

Thank you for the explanation. I see no problem with this approach in principle and wish your business the best of luck. However, you have made a big mistake

Thank you for the explanation. I see no problem with this approach in principle and wish your business the best of luck. However, you have made a big mistake with how the "Commons Clause" confuses Open Source under the OSD with "source available". You were not well served by those who advised you to do so.

XiZhao 8y ago
The Commons Clause clearly acknowledges this in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
- nailer 8y ago
  From that page: > The Commons Clause is a license condition drafted by Heather Meeker that applies a minimal-form commercial restriction on top of an existing open source license Making it proprietary and failing the Open Source Definition. You cannot have Commons Clause 'on top' of an existing Open Source license. This is impossible. You can only replace the existing Open Source license with Commons Clause. The page is a bunch of (insert HN-guidelines-appropriate word for 'very incorrect information'). > This Clause is not intended to be applied against at-scale existing open source projects, but incrementally on top of commercial counterparts that need to be transitioned to source-availability to satisfy urgent business or legal requirements. Commercial and Open Source aren't opposites - this a very basic mistake made by people who are new to OSS. There are many Open Source commercial projects (your bank runs on Red Hat Linux, which is entirely OSS, with everything but the Red Hat logos allowed to be reproduced) and many non-commercial proprietary projects. It's scary that a company called 'Fossa' whose specialty is 'Modern open source management_' is confused about this. > The original Open Source Definition represents an immensely important set of ideals that carried many projects to success during the earlier days. However, the open source ecosystem has changed a lot over the past 10 years, and the conditions of the modern landscape has forced change for the sustainability of many projects. The project wants to create a new OSD which isn't Open Source. The 'drafter' of this license seems to have simply re-created Shared Source per Ballmer-era Microsoft.
  - XiZhao 8y ago
    Yes, and right below it acknowledges that it is not Open Source and doesn't try to be: > It this “Open Source”? > No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.
    - nailer 8y ago
      Yes. The page is full of tautologies. It shoudn't be. Here's a pull request: https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/pull/3 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/pull/3
    - justinjlynn 8y ago
      > Is this Open Source? No. The source is available for inspection and restricted use but, because of these restrictions, its licence is not Open Source per the Open Source Definition. That's all that needs to be said. Your page reads as though the author is hiding something or that the author is ashamed of the answer. Just come out and say it.
  - dang 8y ago
    There's no need to get personal about it, even when you disagree about licensing. Please don't.
    - nailer 8y ago
      The "what's the clause?" section starts with a plug for the clause's creator - even before answering the question, which seems a bit unnecessary, but I'll edit the post and remove the personal reference. Sorry Dan.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Simply naming someone is not 'a plug'. It's just naming someone.
        8y ago
- rectang 8y ago
  The FAQ is not a sufficient corrective for all the deceptive top-level messaging around "Commons Clause". (Name, abbreviation, suggested usage all inappropriately invoking open source). Worse, none of the deceptiveness was necessary to implement the plan described by the Redis Labs Co-Founder above, which is completely [edit: potentially] compatible with Open Source. Antagonizing the wider Open Source community was pointless.
- pvg 8y ago
  That FAQ was quickly added after the yelling started. It's the weaseling and obfuscating that in the end look a lot worse than the perfectly sensible desire to make more money from your products. They could have achieved that without the bizarre 'piss down your back and tell you it's raining' approach.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  That's irrelevant. Nobody is going to read your FAQ. You intentionally created something that tries to muddy the lines between Open Source and Non Open Source. It's dishonest, and deceitful.
  - dang 8y ago
    You can't abuse anyone like that here regardless of how wrong they are or how you feel they are. Please keep the online shaming culture well away from HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mindcrime 8y ago
      You're right, and I've edited my post to reflect that.
derefr 8y ago
Commons Clause software isn't just "source available"; you can modify it and redistribute it, such that the regular FOSS workflow of "fork on GitHub and create a PR" is legal. You just can't deploy your fork (or the original code) in a private service without paying for a license for that code.
- rectang 8y ago
  The content of the license is not what is causing the huge negative reaction -- it's the deceptive messaging. Redis Labs has the opportunity to largely erase this blunder by ditching the name "Commons Clause" and offering the same terms under honest labeling.
scrollaway 8y ago
This is the top post in the thread from ~18 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17816332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17816332 Everybody wants to have their word in how that software they didn't write should be licensed. The back and forth ends up being something akin to "It's your own fault for picking BSD; you shouldn't have picked that in the first place!... now why don't you make all the other stuff BSD too?". Frankly, I don't see what the OSD/OSI definition of open source matters. You pick the license that suits your needs best. People ought to argue the license on its actual text and merits, not whether some other organization likes it or not, otherwise it's just argumentation by authority.

XiZhao 8y ago

The Commons Clause clearly acknowledges this in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/

nailer 8y ago
From that page: > The Commons Clause is a license condition drafted by Heather Meeker that applies a minimal-form commercial restriction on top of an existing open source license Making it proprietary and failing the Open Source Definition. You cannot have Commons Clause 'on top' of an existing Open Source license. This is impossible. You can only replace the existing Open Source license with Commons Clause. The page is a bunch of (insert HN-guidelines-appropriate word for 'very incorrect information'). > This Clause is not intended to be applied against at-scale existing open source projects, but incrementally on top of commercial counterparts that need to be transitioned to source-availability to satisfy urgent business or legal requirements. Commercial and Open Source aren't opposites - this a very basic mistake made by people who are new to OSS. There are many Open Source commercial projects (your bank runs on Red Hat Linux, which is entirely OSS, with everything but the Red Hat logos allowed to be reproduced) and many non-commercial proprietary projects. It's scary that a company called 'Fossa' whose specialty is 'Modern open source management_' is confused about this. > The original Open Source Definition represents an immensely important set of ideals that carried many projects to success during the earlier days. However, the open source ecosystem has changed a lot over the past 10 years, and the conditions of the modern landscape has forced change for the sustainability of many projects. The project wants to create a new OSD which isn't Open Source. The 'drafter' of this license seems to have simply re-created Shared Source per Ballmer-era Microsoft.
- XiZhao 8y ago
  Yes, and right below it acknowledges that it is not Open Source and doesn't try to be: > It this “Open Source”? > No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.
  - nailer 8y ago
    Yes. The page is full of tautologies. It shoudn't be. Here's a pull request: https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/pull/3 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/pull/3
  - justinjlynn 8y ago
    > Is this Open Source? No. The source is available for inspection and restricted use but, because of these restrictions, its licence is not Open Source per the Open Source Definition. That's all that needs to be said. Your page reads as though the author is hiding something or that the author is ashamed of the answer. Just come out and say it.
- dang 8y ago
  There's no need to get personal about it, even when you disagree about licensing. Please don't.
  - nailer 8y ago
    The "what's the clause?" section starts with a plug for the clause's creator - even before answering the question, which seems a bit unnecessary, but I'll edit the post and remove the personal reference. Sorry Dan.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Simply naming someone is not 'a plug'. It's just naming someone.
      - 8y ago
rectang 8y ago
The FAQ is not a sufficient corrective for all the deceptive top-level messaging around "Commons Clause". (Name, abbreviation, suggested usage all inappropriately invoking open source). Worse, none of the deceptiveness was necessary to implement the plan described by the Redis Labs Co-Founder above, which is completely [edit: potentially] compatible with Open Source. Antagonizing the wider Open Source community was pointless.
pvg 8y ago
That FAQ was quickly added after the yelling started. It's the weaseling and obfuscating that in the end look a lot worse than the perfectly sensible desire to make more money from your products. They could have achieved that without the bizarre 'piss down your back and tell you it's raining' approach.
mindcrime 8y ago
That's irrelevant. Nobody is going to read your FAQ. You intentionally created something that tries to muddy the lines between Open Source and Non Open Source. It's dishonest, and deceitful.
- dang 8y ago
  You can't abuse anyone like that here regardless of how wrong they are or how you feel they are. Please keep the online shaming culture well away from HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mindcrime 8y ago
    You're right, and I've edited my post to reflect that.

derefr 8y ago

Commons Clause software isn't just "source available"; you can modify it and redistribute it, such that the regular FOSS workflow of "fork on GitHub and create a PR" is legal. You just can't deploy your fork (or the original code) in a private service without paying for a license for that code.

rectang 8y ago
The content of the license is not what is causing the huge negative reaction -- it's the deceptive messaging. Redis Labs has the opportunity to largely erase this blunder by ditching the name "Commons Clause" and offering the same terms under honest labeling.

scrollaway 8y ago

This is the top post in the thread from ~18 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17816332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17816332 Everybody wants to have their word in how that software they didn't write should be licensed. The back and forth ends up being something akin to "It's your own fault for picking BSD; you shouldn't have picked that in the first place!... now why don't you make all the other stuff BSD too?". Frankly, I don't see what the OSD/OSI definition of open source matters. You pick the license that suits your needs best. People ought to argue the license on its actual text and merits, not whether some other organization likes it or not, otherwise it's just argumentation by authority.