6 ms·

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 bot

by 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.
- XiZhao 8y ago
  Not true. See the AGPL section in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the problems with AGPL. I think the motivations are more accurately that companies like Google refuse to use AGPL'd software and businesses based on open-source/source-open software want to do business with Google et al. Of course, you wrote this FAQ entry, so maybe I'm wrong.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Text quoted from GPLv3: >All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      I remembered the term prohibiting adding restrictive terms, but forgot the “if you got an additional restrictive term, you can release it.” That strictly doesn't prohibit GPLv3 + Commons Clause as an original license, but would seem to make it functionally equivalent to bare GPLv3.
- reitanqild 8y ago
  However AGPL has it's own problems and a lot pf people like me walks straight away if anything is only available as AGPL. Commons clause means the software works as liberal easy-to-use open source for 99.9% of us AFAIK. Edit: is->us
  - pritambaral 8y ago
    > Commons clause means the software works as liberal easy-to-use open source Common Clause is — by its own admission — not open source.
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      "works as ... open source" and "is ... not open source" are compatible statements. For instance, the handle of a screwdriver works as a hammer but is not a hammer.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      You quoted half my sentence, making it much easier to refute my argument. I think it is called a strawman. Edit: as can be seen in my other posts I know it is not open source. As can be seen in their FAQ they know it as well. Edit 2: attack me -> refute my argument.
- sanderjd 8y ago
  I think calling their language "deliberately misleading" is deliberately misleading when there is a representative from the project here telling you that they do not intend to mislead (thus even if it is misleading, it isn't deliberate). But I guess you just seem comfortable calling that person a liar. From reading this one thread, it seems like a bummer to me that you're assuming bad faith. But I had never heard of Dgraph until this thread, so maybe there is history that I'm naively ignoring.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Yes, I'm willing to be frank and state explicitly that I'm calling this person a liar.
    - sanderjd 8y ago
      What's your history with them that leads you to this conclusion? If you don't have any, and you're simply making assumptions based on their choice of licensing terms, what would your argument look like if you instead imagined them as people acting in good faith, trying to provide software to people on terms that allow them to both continue improving the software while also providing for their families? I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        I think I've explained myself quite well in the thread. My personal, subjective conclusion is of dishonesty. I cannot give you an objective measure, the evidence is in this thread and you can draw your own conclusions. Being a generally good person who is trying to put food on the table for their family is not mutually exclusive with lying and resorting to questionably ethical means of doing so.
        8y ago

by eecc 8y ago

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.

XiZhao 8y ago
Not true. See the AGPL section in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the problems with AGPL. I think the motivations are more accurately that companies like Google refuse to use AGPL'd software and businesses based on open-source/source-open software want to do business with Google et al. Of course, you wrote this FAQ entry, so maybe I'm wrong.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Text quoted from GPLv3: >All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I remembered the term prohibiting adding restrictive terms, but forgot the “if you got an additional restrictive term, you can release it.” That strictly doesn't prohibit GPLv3 + Commons Clause as an original license, but would seem to make it functionally equivalent to bare GPLv3.
reitanqild 8y ago
However AGPL has it's own problems and a lot pf people like me walks straight away if anything is only available as AGPL. Commons clause means the software works as liberal easy-to-use open source for 99.9% of us AFAIK. Edit: is->us
- pritambaral 8y ago
  > Commons clause means the software works as liberal easy-to-use open source Common Clause is — by its own admission — not open source.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    "works as ... open source" and "is ... not open source" are compatible statements. For instance, the handle of a screwdriver works as a hammer but is not a hammer.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    You quoted half my sentence, making it much easier to refute my argument. I think it is called a strawman. Edit: as can be seen in my other posts I know it is not open source. As can be seen in their FAQ they know it as well. Edit 2: attack me -> refute my argument.
sanderjd 8y ago
I think calling their language "deliberately misleading" is deliberately misleading when there is a representative from the project here telling you that they do not intend to mislead (thus even if it is misleading, it isn't deliberate). But I guess you just seem comfortable calling that person a liar. From reading this one thread, it seems like a bummer to me that you're assuming bad faith. But I had never heard of Dgraph until this thread, so maybe there is history that I'm naively ignoring.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Yes, I'm willing to be frank and state explicitly that I'm calling this person a liar.
  - sanderjd 8y ago
    What's your history with them that leads you to this conclusion? If you don't have any, and you're simply making assumptions based on their choice of licensing terms, what would your argument look like if you instead imagined them as people acting in good faith, trying to provide software to people on terms that allow them to both continue improving the software while also providing for their families? I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      I think I've explained myself quite well in the thread. My personal, subjective conclusion is of dishonesty. I cannot give you an objective measure, the evidence is in this thread and you can draw your own conclusions. Being a generally good person who is trying to put food on the table for their family is not mutually exclusive with lying and resorting to questionably ethical means of doing so.
      - 8y ago