5 ms·

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 compan

by 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.
    - eecc 8y ago
      Can you please stop sanctimoniously sprinkling “dishonest” all over?
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        It accurately describes the behavior I'm talking about. Would you prefer I spice it up with some more "disingenous" and "misleading" too?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - staticassertion 8y ago
      This is so overdramatic and unfortunate - a company puts code out there, does good work, largely follows OSS, and this topic gets derailed. They degrade on the 'de facto' definition of OS by saying that others may not sell it. That's it. Comments like yours are why I don't interact with open source at all.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        These freedoms are important, and by removing them the whole license is practically undermined. They forgot about the rights of the users and contributors while they were busy thinking about the rights of the maintainers. To quote something I said in a private email: >The Commons Clause nullifies pretty much any privledge granted by the original license, further rendering it useless. For example, the permission to make and publish changes to the work, or reuse the code elsewhere. Is the Commons Clause viral? If I take a small function from RedisLabs and incorporate it into my project, do my users have to pay RedisLabs to support my project? If RedisLabs decides not to, is my project now illegal to support at all? What if I want to fork the software, does my fork inherit the clause and do the same problems apply? This doesn't sound anything like the "commons" to me. Pretty much all of the rights afforded to users of open source are rendered null and void, and the mention of an open source license in the licensing terms of such software is laughable.
      - 8y ago
  - openasocket 8y ago
    The website says "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", and Sir_Cmpwn says it should say "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 + Commons Clause license" to not be misleading. Are you saying you don't want to make that really simple change?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > We have not changed the Apache license terms. Yes, you have. > We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together. Adding the Commons Clause changes the terms of the Apache license quite substantially, which is obviously the reason you added it.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Curious, what did come from your communication with the Apache Foundation after they voiced their concerns about your usage of the label "Apache License"? https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... This stuff really sours me on the otherwise fairly reasonable license and its users.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  I think liberally licensed makes perfect sense: You can use it freely for open source and commercial applications with one, single, easy-to-understand catch: You can't sell it or provide it as a paid service. Is it open source? No. Can I and you and almost everyone except Google Gloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure use it exactly as if it is open source? Yes. Is it less hassle than the AGPL? IMO, clearly yes.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    >Can I and you and almost everyone except Google Gloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure use it exactly as if it is open source? No, definitely not. I elaborated on why "liberal" is inappropriate here in a different comment: >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. I also wrote here about how this affects people like you and I: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17830644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17830644
  - porker 8y ago
    > Is it open source? No. Yes it is. You can read the source code. It's not FOSS, or Open Source per the OSI definition.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      > Yes it is. You can read the source code. You can read the source of Oracle Java as well. Doesn't make it open source. Open source has a defined meaning. Common Clause even points out in their FAQ that it makes the software not open source.
marknadal 8y ago
Commons Clause, GPL, FSF, etc. are not liberal though. MIT, BSD, ZLIB, Apache2, etc. are liberal.

by 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.
  - eecc 8y ago
    Can you please stop sanctimoniously sprinkling “dishonest” all over?
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      It accurately describes the behavior I'm talking about. Would you prefer I spice it up with some more "disingenous" and "misleading" too?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - staticassertion 8y ago
    This is so overdramatic and unfortunate - a company puts code out there, does good work, largely follows OSS, and this topic gets derailed. They degrade on the 'de facto' definition of OS by saying that others may not sell it. That's it. Comments like yours are why I don't interact with open source at all.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      These freedoms are important, and by removing them the whole license is practically undermined. They forgot about the rights of the users and contributors while they were busy thinking about the rights of the maintainers. To quote something I said in a private email: >The Commons Clause nullifies pretty much any privledge granted by the original license, further rendering it useless. For example, the permission to make and publish changes to the work, or reuse the code elsewhere. Is the Commons Clause viral? If I take a small function from RedisLabs and incorporate it into my project, do my users have to pay RedisLabs to support my project? If RedisLabs decides not to, is my project now illegal to support at all? What if I want to fork the software, does my fork inherit the clause and do the same problems apply? This doesn't sound anything like the "commons" to me. Pretty much all of the rights afforded to users of open source are rendered null and void, and the mention of an open source license in the licensing terms of such software is laughable.
    - 8y ago
- openasocket 8y ago
  The website says "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", and Sir_Cmpwn says it should say "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 + Commons Clause license" to not be misleading. Are you saying you don't want to make that really simple change?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > We have not changed the Apache license terms. Yes, you have. > We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together. Adding the Commons Clause changes the terms of the Apache license quite substantially, which is obviously the reason you added it.
- detaro 8y ago
  Curious, what did come from your communication with the Apache Foundation after they voiced their concerns about your usage of the label "Apache License"? https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... This stuff really sours me on the otherwise fairly reasonable license and its users.
reitanqild 8y ago
I think liberally licensed makes perfect sense: You can use it freely for open source and commercial applications with one, single, easy-to-understand catch: You can't sell it or provide it as a paid service. Is it open source? No. Can I and you and almost everyone except Google Gloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure use it exactly as if it is open source? Yes. Is it less hassle than the AGPL? IMO, clearly yes.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  >Can I and you and almost everyone except Google Gloud, Amazon AWS and Microsoft Azure use it exactly as if it is open source? No, definitely not. I elaborated on why "liberal" is inappropriate here in a different comment: >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. I also wrote here about how this affects people like you and I: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17830644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17830644
- porker 8y ago
  > Is it open source? No. Yes it is. You can read the source code. It's not FOSS, or Open Source per the OSI definition.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    > Yes it is. You can read the source code. You can read the source of Oracle Java as well. Doesn't make it open source. Open source has a defined meaning. Common Clause even points out in their FAQ that it makes the software not open source.

marknadal 8y ago

Commons Clause, GPL, FSF, etc. are not liberal though. MIT, BSD, ZLIB, Apache2, etc. are liberal.