3 ms·

I 100% agree, and it's disheartening to see so many voices here ignore this reality. It's like there's more passion for the ideal of open-source than for the re

by zapita 8y ago

I 100% agree, and it's disheartening to see so many voices here ignore this reality. It's like there's more passion for the ideal of open-source than for the reality of how open-source practitioners actually struggle to make the model work in practice. Whether Commons Clause is the right solution or not (and I have my opinion on that), at least the Redis people are trying something to fix the problem of unstustainable one-way resource extraction by mega-corporations. Of the hundreds of people criticizing them here, often in ways that question their motivation and integrity, how many are offering alternative solutions? As far as I can tell, it's a depressingly small number. After everything Antirez has contributed to us, he deserves better than this avalanche of unconstructive negativity. If you think Commons Clause is not the correct solution to the problem of unsustainable exploitation of open-source projects, what do you propose?

rectang 8y ago
They're just doing the open core model, with a tweak on the licensing of their proprietary add-ons to exclude cloud providers. I don't have a big problem with that, so long as there's a clear delineation between the open source and proprietary offerings. The only thing they're doing "differently" is the deceptive messaging. For this, I blame the Commons Clause initiative. Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different.
- nemo44x 8y ago
  They should call it the "Redis Labs License".
- dwheeler 8y ago
  I think that's the real problem for many: The naming used here, and the supporting FAQ, appear deceptive to many. Lots of companies have an "open core" model (where the core is OSS and some modules are proprietary). Many organizations have mechanisms where you can review source code of their proprietary code, subject to certain requirements. When things are made clear, there's no deception. But naming a license rider "Commons" seems designed to cause confusion. It'll be easily confused with OSS licenses (since a "commons" is the discussed reason for having them) and with the well-known Creative Commons licenses. Saying it's a rider "with" the Apache License 2.0 also makes it appear that that this is the Apache License and endorsed by the Apache Foundation, which it is not. Saying that something is only OSS if you use the standard definition of OSS makes it sound like there's a minor legal nit, but it's a fundamental precept that OSS allows any use (including use by business). > Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different. I think that's right. I'm sure some would be unhappy, but the real problem here is the naming that seems designed to mislead. I'm not sure the information here was actually designed to mislead, but if that wasn't the intent, I think Redis Labs needs to change the names to quell the confusion. If Redis Labs continues to use these confusing names, I suspect that the Creative Commons Corporation and Apache Foundation will consider going to court to protect their trademarks, since otherwise there's a significant risk of confusion in the marketplace (the reason that trademarks exist). Hopefully Redis Labs will just change to less-confusing names and then the problem will disappear.
- zapita 8y ago
  I disagree that they’re “just doing the open core model”. Open Core typically is fully proprietary and provides no source access. The least proprietary open core product I can think of is RHEL, and the source they provide is heavily crippled: last I checked it’s basically a giant tarball of patches they throw over the wall every few years, with even more restrictive usage rules (try using the “Red Hat” trademark in your product and count the seconds before their legal department gives you a call). In comparison Commons Clause is very lax. I get that Commons Clause does not meet the official definition of Open Source (which I believe they admit upfront), but it’s definitely different from “open core” and from whatever Red Hat calls their model. Since it’s something new, it seems reasonable to give it a new name. I don’t have any strong opinions about the name “Commons Clause, maybe there’s a better name for it, but I wouldn’t call this one deceptive.

by zapita 8y ago

rectang 8y ago

They're just doing the open core model, with a tweak on the licensing of their proprietary add-ons to exclude cloud providers. I don't have a big problem with that, so long as there's a clear delineation between the open source and proprietary offerings. The only thing they're doing "differently" is the deceptive messaging. For this, I blame the Commons Clause initiative. Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different.

nemo44x 8y ago
They should call it the "Redis Labs License".
dwheeler 8y ago
I think that's the real problem for many: The naming used here, and the supporting FAQ, appear deceptive to many. Lots of companies have an "open core" model (where the core is OSS and some modules are proprietary). Many organizations have mechanisms where you can review source code of their proprietary code, subject to certain requirements. When things are made clear, there's no deception. But naming a license rider "Commons" seems designed to cause confusion. It'll be easily confused with OSS licenses (since a "commons" is the discussed reason for having them) and with the well-known Creative Commons licenses. Saying it's a rider "with" the Apache License 2.0 also makes it appear that that this is the Apache License and endorsed by the Apache Foundation, which it is not. Saying that something is only OSS if you use the standard definition of OSS makes it sound like there's a minor legal nit, but it's a fundamental precept that OSS allows any use (including use by business). > Redis Labs could take these same actions under a non-deceptive name and the response of the Open Source community would be vastly different. I think that's right. I'm sure some would be unhappy, but the real problem here is the naming that seems designed to mislead. I'm not sure the information here was actually designed to mislead, but if that wasn't the intent, I think Redis Labs needs to change the names to quell the confusion. If Redis Labs continues to use these confusing names, I suspect that the Creative Commons Corporation and Apache Foundation will consider going to court to protect their trademarks, since otherwise there's a significant risk of confusion in the marketplace (the reason that trademarks exist). Hopefully Redis Labs will just change to less-confusing names and then the problem will disappear.
zapita 8y ago
I disagree that they’re “just doing the open core model”. Open Core typically is fully proprietary and provides no source access. The least proprietary open core product I can think of is RHEL, and the source they provide is heavily crippled: last I checked it’s basically a giant tarball of patches they throw over the wall every few years, with even more restrictive usage rules (try using the “Red Hat” trademark in your product and count the seconds before their legal department gives you a call). In comparison Commons Clause is very lax. I get that Commons Clause does not meet the official definition of Open Source (which I believe they admit upfront), but it’s definitely different from “open core” and from whatever Red Hat calls their model. Since it’s something new, it seems reasonable to give it a new name. I don’t have any strong opinions about the name “Commons Clause, maybe there’s a better name for it, but I wouldn’t call this one deceptive.