4 ms·

> Apache Common Clause license No. This is reprehensible garbage. This license is not endorsed by the Apache Software Foundation. EDIT: removed "proprietary

> Apache Common Clause license No. This is reprehensible garbage. This license is not endorsed by the Apache Software Foundation. EDIT: removed "proprietary"

antirez 8y ago
Yep this should be reworded to something like: This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license, the Apache 2 OSS license with the commercial Common Clause restricting certain freedoms.
- rectang 8y ago
  It is not "mixed OSS/commercial", because it is not OSS. Using the text of the Apache License 2.0 as a point of departure is fine. But please make it clear what you are doing.
- jahewson 8y ago
  The problem here is that the end result is not the Apache 2.0 license anymore. It’s something else. Using the Apache name in this context raises some serious eyebrows. By all means keep the common core concept for Redis but I urge you to get as far away from this toxic “Common Clause” pseudo-license as possible.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  That would be actively misleading - "This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license" implies the traditional dual-licenced model where you offer both an open source licence (e.g. GPL) and a commercial licence. Those who want an open source licence can choose that one, and those who want some extra options can choose the commercial licence. That's not the case here, there's no choice to get an OSS licence. The difference between this and the restrictions in other OSS licences is that the "common clause" restricts core freedoms - if you attach it to something, that something ceases to be an open source licence, this clause transforms into a commercial licence that prohibits free use of the software. There's nothing mixed about it, it's a "not-OSS" licence.
saidajigumi 8y ago
Just because you disagree with the terms of a license doesn't make it "proprietary". Is the AGPL also "proprietary"? It would be far more productive to state your particular disagreement(s) than to inaccurately apply labels you think will tarnish the target of your ire.
- rectang 8y ago
  I will remove "proprietary" from my post. The gist of my objection is not the content of the license, but the implied endorsement of the Apache Software Foundation.
- antirez 8y ago
  I think that Common Clause is proprietary while AGPL is open source. This should not be a matter of opinion. AGPL asks you to redistribute the work back, however if you complain with the share back clauses, you can do whatever you want with the code. This is not the case of Common Clause. However if we don't focus too much on the Open Source license yes/no, we can see how there is a spectrum of licenses... and Common Clause allows many freedoms to actual users compared to other non-OSS licenses, and in certain respects even VS AGPL.
  - saidajigumi 8y ago
    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I now understand and agree with this position, and observe that it was the "spectrum" aspect that caught me out: I'm used to thinking of a "proprietary" license as being far more restrictive than Common Clause. It's possible see both the OSS and proprietary aspects in this license.
- binomialxenon 8y ago
  Any license that includes the ""Commons Clause"" is by definition proprietary, it precludes incorporating the code into anything commercial and even prohibiting anyone from providing paid support for it (which seems even more extreme). It's a set of anti-commercial license terms and is definitely proprietary by Free Software and Open Source definitions.
Benjammer 8y ago
It's not called "Apache Common Clause." This is a mistake by the writer of the post. It's "Apache 2 + Commons Clause add-on."
- rectang 8y ago
  And this illustrates why the Commons Clause naming and usage guidelines are so problematic.
  - Benjammer 8y ago
    Yep, agreed.
- hinkley 8y ago
  That's guaranteed to result in a Cease and Desist. Concatenating those words makes it look like an endorsement.
- chaostheory 8y ago
  That is exactly why it should be renamed. It seems to be designed to be confusing. No one will care as much, if they just made it clear that they are transitioning parts of it to a commercial license that is not confusingly named. They are trying to make it sound like Apache is endorsing this license.
binomialxenon 8y ago
Really takes away from the credibility of the article too, that they don't know the form of the license/clause they are talking about.

> Apache Common Clause license No. This is reprehensible garbage. This license is not endorsed by the Apache Software Foundation. EDIT: removed "proprietary"

antirez 8y ago

Yep this should be reworded to something like: This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license, the Apache 2 OSS license with the commercial Common Clause restricting certain freedoms.

rectang 8y ago
It is not "mixed OSS/commercial", because it is not OSS. Using the text of the Apache License 2.0 as a point of departure is fine. But please make it clear what you are doing.
jahewson 8y ago
The problem here is that the end result is not the Apache 2.0 license anymore. It’s something else. Using the Apache name in this context raises some serious eyebrows. By all means keep the common core concept for Redis but I urge you to get as far away from this toxic “Common Clause” pseudo-license as possible.
PeterisP 8y ago
That would be actively misleading - "This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license" implies the traditional dual-licenced model where you offer both an open source licence (e.g. GPL) and a commercial licence. Those who want an open source licence can choose that one, and those who want some extra options can choose the commercial licence. That's not the case here, there's no choice to get an OSS licence. The difference between this and the restrictions in other OSS licences is that the "common clause" restricts core freedoms - if you attach it to something, that something ceases to be an open source licence, this clause transforms into a commercial licence that prohibits free use of the software. There's nothing mixed about it, it's a "not-OSS" licence.

saidajigumi 8y ago

Just because you disagree with the terms of a license doesn't make it "proprietary". Is the AGPL also "proprietary"? It would be far more productive to state your particular disagreement(s) than to inaccurately apply labels you think will tarnish the target of your ire.

rectang 8y ago
I will remove "proprietary" from my post. The gist of my objection is not the content of the license, but the implied endorsement of the Apache Software Foundation.
antirez 8y ago
I think that Common Clause is proprietary while AGPL is open source. This should not be a matter of opinion. AGPL asks you to redistribute the work back, however if you complain with the share back clauses, you can do whatever you want with the code. This is not the case of Common Clause. However if we don't focus too much on the Open Source license yes/no, we can see how there is a spectrum of licenses... and Common Clause allows many freedoms to actual users compared to other non-OSS licenses, and in certain respects even VS AGPL.
- saidajigumi 8y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I now understand and agree with this position, and observe that it was the "spectrum" aspect that caught me out: I'm used to thinking of a "proprietary" license as being far more restrictive than Common Clause. It's possible see both the OSS and proprietary aspects in this license.
binomialxenon 8y ago
Any license that includes the ""Commons Clause"" is by definition proprietary, it precludes incorporating the code into anything commercial and even prohibiting anyone from providing paid support for it (which seems even more extreme). It's a set of anti-commercial license terms and is definitely proprietary by Free Software and Open Source definitions.

Benjammer 8y ago

It's not called "Apache Common Clause." This is a mistake by the writer of the post. It's "Apache 2 + Commons Clause add-on."

rectang 8y ago
And this illustrates why the Commons Clause naming and usage guidelines are so problematic.
- Benjammer 8y ago
  Yep, agreed.
hinkley 8y ago
That's guaranteed to result in a Cease and Desist. Concatenating those words makes it look like an endorsement.
chaostheory 8y ago
That is exactly why it should be renamed. It seems to be designed to be confusing. No one will care as much, if they just made it clear that they are transitioning parts of it to a commercial license that is not confusingly named. They are trying to make it sound like Apache is endorsing this license.

binomialxenon 8y ago

Really takes away from the credibility of the article too, that they don't know the form of the license/clause they are talking about.