7 ms·

Important: contrary to the marketing material, dgraph is not open source - it uses the Commons Clause we've been discussing over the past few days. Discussion h

Important: contrary to the marketing material, dgraph is not open source - it uses the Commons Clause we've been discussing over the past few days. Discussion here: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2545 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2545

jadbox 8y ago
Doesn't open source just mean you have access to read and modify the software? It's the stronger term Libre that implies that you grant all distribution/selling rights to the public.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  No, open source is defined by the Open Source Definition, published by the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Is the contention by OSI that when they coined the label "open source" on 1998-02-03[1] that it was both unused previously and/or that they have sole claim to that label? Because that's never been how I understood it. I'm pretty sure I understood it to be, at least in it's most encompassing sense, that the source was visible long before the time OSI says it created the label. Edit: s/weakest/encompassing/ 1: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, which is accepted as the canonical list of open source licenses by everyone. Even if OSI is not your cup of tea (they're a very netural organization, so I don't see why anyone would protest their authority), the FSF is another venerable organization that provides a similar definition of open source and maintains a similar list of open source licenses. You would be hard pressed to find any other respected authority which defines open source in a manner consistent with the Commons Clause. It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. If you want to use a proprietary license, own up to it, don't try to get the mindshare of open source when you aren't. The ancient Greek empire might have included Italy in the past, but an Italian who says they're from Greece today is lying.
      - kbenson 8y ago
        > It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
        simonw 8y ago
        > Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.
    - cjbprime 8y ago
      Yes, I think so. If you believe that it was used previously, show evidence?
      - kbenson 8y ago
        I can't seem to find any, so apparently I'm misremembering. So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as? I was running Linux back in 1996, and I can't seem to remember any other way it was referred to.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as Free Software. Sometimes with “free as in speech” to distinguish from the also common “free as in beer” no-cost but restrictively licensed (or, often at the time, with no express license) software.
- brazzledazzle 8y ago
  I don’t have any problems with the commons clause in principle but I think they (the commons coalition or whatever they are) should just create a new license. Like commons-apache2.0 or something. Saying you’re Apache licensed is kind of dishonest because it’s not really.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    If they do I'd rather they not use the commons name, which (perhaps intentionally) causes confusion alongside Apache Commons: https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      I'd rather they didn't use the Apache trademark, too; just write a clear license of your own rather than trying to hijack a license with a radically different purpose but existing goodwill and then reversing it's meaning with an add-on clause.
      - reitanqild 8y ago
        It is not a radically different purpose as far as I understand; it is the same purpose: an extremely permissive and business friendly license with one, intentionally very narrow exception.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > an extremely permissive and business friendly license In software licensing a “permissive license” is a well-established term for a free or open source license that does not restrict downstream derivatives to use the same license (or the license family) for the downstream contributions, as opposed to a copyleft license which does impose such a requirement. Apache 2.0 is, indeed, a permissive license, and that is a central purpose of its intent. (Anything) + Commons Clause is not a permissive license, and that too is a central purpose of its intent. > with one, intentionally very narrow exception. The restriction in the Common Clause is not “very narrow” (or with very clear boundaries, which makes the area of legal risk larger.)
tunesmith 8y ago
When did the definition of "open source" change? I always took "open source" to be an umbrella term that contained both Apache-type licenses and GPL/FSF-type licenses. I get that Commons Clause is more restrictive in ways than GPL, but GPL is definitely open source. So what makes Commons Clause not open source, if GPL is?
- ealexhudson 8y ago
  You can sell GPL'd software (on its own or as a service), you can't sell Commons Cause software as a service.
- brazzledazzle 8y ago
  It’s not really Apache though. That’s the problem I see with it. If you tell me you’re Apache licensed I shouldn’t be surprised when I open your license file.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  The definition of "open source" never changed. Apache and the GPL are both open source licenses. Appending the Commons Clause removes the zeroth freedom (FSF lingo) or the first clause (OSI lingo). https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
  - eecc 8y ago
    Which in today’s world where “we were planning to fund our lives offering professional services around a production deployment” is kindly railroaded by rock bottom AWS prices is a-ok... That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3. I see a v4 coming
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      Withholding judgement on whether or not using a non-open license is the appropriate choice for Dgraph, the problem persists that their language is deliberately misleading. Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause, any software using any GPL-family license cannot include the Commons Clause. Finally, AGPL was explicitly designed years ago to address the case you raise, i.e. the server-side Tivo problem.
mrjn 8y ago
We changed the references to say liberally licensed. I'll try and write a bigger blog post about the reasoning behind Commons Clause and Dgraph and other companies' adoption of it.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I think it's disengenuous to say liberally licensed. Liberally licensed might apply to MIT or even Apache alone, but not when you include the Commons Clause. But it's a subjective measure, so you're not making factually incorrect statements even if you are being dishonest. Your updated statement also says "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", which I think is unfairly using the Apache 2.0 name without clarifying that your license in fact is not open source. The language is still dishonest.
  - mrjn 8y ago
    First, to be clear, we are the authors of this software, so our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software. We have done that and we are obviously not trying to mislead anyone. We think our licensing statement is easy to understand. We have not changed the Apache license terms. We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together. If we had changed the Apache license, we would not have referred to it by that name. But given we have not changed the Apache terms, it seems to us more confusing to arbitrarily refer to those terms by a different name. My take is that Apache + Commons Clause is more liberal than AGPL, something I can expand on in my blog post -- that's clear from our users, who actually appreciated the switch from AGPL to the current license.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      You are free to license your software as you wish, and I am not questioning your right to. There are three separate issues here. >our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software You are not doing this. Your website reads "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", which is technically true but also very dishonest. Your software does not use the Apache 2.0 license, and users of it should not expect to enjoy the freedoms granted to them by the Apache 2.0 license. >We have not changed the Apache license terms This is not true. The Apache license explicitly grants freedoms which the following >We have added an additional term changes. Don't wrangle words into passable lies, you're not talking to idiots. Your wording is misleading and dishonest, which are two qualities you should be trying very hard not to associate with your brand. So far you're not doing well. No one is questioning your right to license the software as you wish. But you are not proud of your choice and are using slimy and dishonest language on your marketing material to hide your shame and trick potential users. A separate issue is the subjective one, which is whether or not the commons clause is liberal. I think you are being dishonest here. There are widely accepted definitions for "liberal" among the open source community. The main differentiating factor of a liberal license is that it's not viral. Most people informed on this subject can then neatly and objectively file licenses into liberal and restrictive categories, with licenses like MIT, BSD, and Apache in the liberal camp, and the GPL family of licenses in the restrictive camp. However, the distinction has always been subjective, and nothing like the OSD exists. Additionally, the distinction is only ever applied in the comparison of open source licenses, of which yours is not a member. The realm of proprietary licenses masquarading as open source licenses is unexplored territory, and I'm drawing a line: no matter how restrictive a license like AGPL is, a license which is not even open source in the first place is far from liberal. The third issue is whether or not using the Commons Clause is the right thing for Dgraph to do. In my opinion, it's a slap in the face to everyone who ever used or especially to anyone who ever contributed to Dgraph. In fact, as I was researching dgraph a bit more to see how you approached this issue, it also occurs to me that I can't find any discussion where existing Dgraph contributors were consulted on the matter of relicensing their work, which seems to me that your license change was not only distasteful and harmful to your project, but also illegal. Were all of the contributors consulted and their permission obtained to change the license? I'll certainly be consulting them if not.
Meai 8y ago
Well I guess I learned something new today, open source is apparently a term that was defined by somebody and has a counter intuitive meaning. To me it has always meant that the code is available for viewing - nothing more. I assumed this without knowing anything about the OSI. Reference: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- slavak 8y ago
  Yup. Open-source is a whole philosophy. What you're talking about is called source-available software.
sanderjd 8y ago
What does this have to do with the Jepsen test discussed here? I'm pretty tired of so many comments sections turning into philosophical debates of open source licensing terms the past few days. Maybe this will naturally bubble down so that the far more interesting technical discussions can bubble to the top, but I fear this sub-thread will eventually drown out the on-topic discussion.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I normally wouldn't comment, but in this case we're talking about a promotional article that leads readers down a conversion funnel. Because some steps at that conversion funnel are dishonest, I want to make sure that people are aware of what they're actually looking at.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    This is fair, and it looks like the more interesting discussions have bubbled up above this, so my concern appears to have been misplaced. Cheers.

jadbox 8y ago

Doesn't open source just mean you have access to read and modify the software? It's the stronger term Libre that implies that you grant all distribution/selling rights to the public.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
No, open source is defined by the Open Source Definition, published by the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- kbenson 8y ago
  Is the contention by OSI that when they coined the label "open source" on 1998-02-03[1] that it was both unused previously and/or that they have sole claim to that label? Because that's never been how I understood it. I'm pretty sure I understood it to be, at least in it's most encompassing sense, that the source was visible long before the time OSI says it created the label. Edit: s/weakest/encompassing/ 1: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, which is accepted as the canonical list of open source licenses by everyone. Even if OSI is not your cup of tea (they're a very netural organization, so I don't see why anyone would protest their authority), the FSF is another venerable organization that provides a similar definition of open source and maintains a similar list of open source licenses. You would be hard pressed to find any other respected authority which defines open source in a manner consistent with the Commons Clause. It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. If you want to use a proprietary license, own up to it, don't try to get the mindshare of open source when you aren't. The ancient Greek empire might have included Italy in the past, but an Italian who says they're from Greece today is lying.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
      - simonw 8y ago
        > Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    Yes, I think so. If you believe that it was used previously, show evidence?
    - kbenson 8y ago
      I can't seem to find any, so apparently I'm misremembering. So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as? I was running Linux back in 1996, and I can't seem to remember any other way it was referred to.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as Free Software. Sometimes with “free as in speech” to distinguish from the also common “free as in beer” no-cost but restrictively licensed (or, often at the time, with no express license) software.
brazzledazzle 8y ago
I don’t have any problems with the commons clause in principle but I think they (the commons coalition or whatever they are) should just create a new license. Like commons-apache2.0 or something. Saying you’re Apache licensed is kind of dishonest because it’s not really.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  If they do I'd rather they not use the commons name, which (perhaps intentionally) causes confusion alongside Apache Commons: https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I'd rather they didn't use the Apache trademark, too; just write a clear license of your own rather than trying to hijack a license with a radically different purpose but existing goodwill and then reversing it's meaning with an add-on clause.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      It is not a radically different purpose as far as I understand; it is the same purpose: an extremely permissive and business friendly license with one, intentionally very narrow exception.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > an extremely permissive and business friendly license In software licensing a “permissive license” is a well-established term for a free or open source license that does not restrict downstream derivatives to use the same license (or the license family) for the downstream contributions, as opposed to a copyleft license which does impose such a requirement. Apache 2.0 is, indeed, a permissive license, and that is a central purpose of its intent. (Anything) + Commons Clause is not a permissive license, and that too is a central purpose of its intent. > with one, intentionally very narrow exception. The restriction in the Common Clause is not “very narrow” (or with very clear boundaries, which makes the area of legal risk larger.)

tunesmith 8y ago

When did the definition of "open source" change? I always took "open source" to be an umbrella term that contained both Apache-type licenses and GPL/FSF-type licenses. I get that Commons Clause is more restrictive in ways than GPL, but GPL is definitely open source. So what makes Commons Clause not open source, if GPL is?

ealexhudson 8y ago
You can sell GPL'd software (on its own or as a service), you can't sell Commons Cause software as a service.
brazzledazzle 8y ago
It’s not really Apache though. That’s the problem I see with it. If you tell me you’re Apache licensed I shouldn’t be surprised when I open your license file.
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
The definition of "open source" never changed. Apache and the GPL are both open source licenses. Appending the Commons Clause removes the zeroth freedom (FSF lingo) or the first clause (OSI lingo). https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- eecc 8y ago
  Which in today’s world where “we were planning to fund our lives offering professional services around a production deployment” is kindly railroaded by rock bottom AWS prices is a-ok... That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3. I see a v4 coming
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Withholding judgement on whether or not using a non-open license is the appropriate choice for Dgraph, the problem persists that their language is deliberately misleading. Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause, any software using any GPL-family license cannot include the Commons Clause. Finally, AGPL was explicitly designed years ago to address the case you raise, i.e. the server-side Tivo problem.

mrjn 8y ago

We changed the references to say liberally licensed. I'll try and write a bigger blog post about the reasoning behind Commons Clause and Dgraph and other companies' adoption of it.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I think it's disengenuous to say liberally licensed. Liberally licensed might apply to MIT or even Apache alone, but not when you include the Commons Clause. But it's a subjective measure, so you're not making factually incorrect statements even if you are being dishonest. Your updated statement also says "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", which I think is unfairly using the Apache 2.0 name without clarifying that your license in fact is not open source. The language is still dishonest.
- mrjn 8y ago
  First, to be clear, we are the authors of this software, so our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software. We have done that and we are obviously not trying to mislead anyone. We think our licensing statement is easy to understand. We have not changed the Apache license terms. We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together. If we had changed the Apache license, we would not have referred to it by that name. But given we have not changed the Apache terms, it seems to us more confusing to arbitrarily refer to those terms by a different name. My take is that Apache + Commons Clause is more liberal than AGPL, something I can expand on in my blog post -- that's clear from our users, who actually appreciated the switch from AGPL to the current license.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    You are free to license your software as you wish, and I am not questioning your right to. There are three separate issues here. >our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software You are not doing this. Your website reads "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", which is technically true but also very dishonest. Your software does not use the Apache 2.0 license, and users of it should not expect to enjoy the freedoms granted to them by the Apache 2.0 license. >We have not changed the Apache license terms This is not true. The Apache license explicitly grants freedoms which the following >We have added an additional term changes. Don't wrangle words into passable lies, you're not talking to idiots. Your wording is misleading and dishonest, which are two qualities you should be trying very hard not to associate with your brand. So far you're not doing well. No one is questioning your right to license the software as you wish. But you are not proud of your choice and are using slimy and dishonest language on your marketing material to hide your shame and trick potential users. A separate issue is the subjective one, which is whether or not the commons clause is liberal. I think you are being dishonest here. There are widely accepted definitions for "liberal" among the open source community. The main differentiating factor of a liberal license is that it's not viral. Most people informed on this subject can then neatly and objectively file licenses into liberal and restrictive categories, with licenses like MIT, BSD, and Apache in the liberal camp, and the GPL family of licenses in the restrictive camp. However, the distinction has always been subjective, and nothing like the OSD exists. Additionally, the distinction is only ever applied in the comparison of open source licenses, of which yours is not a member. The realm of proprietary licenses masquarading as open source licenses is unexplored territory, and I'm drawing a line: no matter how restrictive a license like AGPL is, a license which is not even open source in the first place is far from liberal. The third issue is whether or not using the Commons Clause is the right thing for Dgraph to do. In my opinion, it's a slap in the face to everyone who ever used or especially to anyone who ever contributed to Dgraph. In fact, as I was researching dgraph a bit more to see how you approached this issue, it also occurs to me that I can't find any discussion where existing Dgraph contributors were consulted on the matter of relicensing their work, which seems to me that your license change was not only distasteful and harmful to your project, but also illegal. Were all of the contributors consulted and their permission obtained to change the license? I'll certainly be consulting them if not.

Meai 8y ago

Well I guess I learned something new today, open source is apparently a term that was defined by somebody and has a counter intuitive meaning. To me it has always meant that the code is available for viewing - nothing more. I assumed this without knowing anything about the OSI. Reference: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

slavak 8y ago
Yup. Open-source is a whole philosophy. What you're talking about is called source-available software.

sanderjd 8y ago

What does this have to do with the Jepsen test discussed here? I'm pretty tired of so many comments sections turning into philosophical debates of open source licensing terms the past few days. Maybe this will naturally bubble down so that the far more interesting technical discussions can bubble to the top, but I fear this sub-thread will eventually drown out the on-topic discussion.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I normally wouldn't comment, but in this case we're talking about a promotional article that leads readers down a conversion funnel. Because some steps at that conversion funnel are dishonest, I want to make sure that people are aware of what they're actually looking at.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  This is fair, and it looks like the more interesting discussions have bubbled up above this, so my concern appears to have been misplaced. Cheers.