4 ms·

> Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the word “Apac

> Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.) What an incredibly uncivil article. How can one say this when, in basically every HN thread on this subject, it had to be explained to at least one person that this is not an Apache license?

gregwebs 8y ago
They have done a poor job communicating this license to the community, and this continues the tradition :( I would like to see the discussion move from the messenger to the idea (now that hopefully everyone actually understand it!). This is a very important topic to figure out.
- danieldk 8y ago
  This is a very important topic to figure out. IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the Apache 2 License to require cloud users to put some unflattering notice in their documentation: If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. Offer the option to purchase a license to the software without the requirement to display the notice.
  - gregwebs 8y ago
    Cloud providers aren't actually distributing open source software though unless it is AGPL. So I think this is a good idea, but you also need a better AGPL license too.
    - danieldk 8y ago
      I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back (well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice somewhere visibly ;)). But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.
      - gregwebs 8y ago
        Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers" has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming should be achievable without using licenses. But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).
TotempaaltJ 8y ago
This was my main takeaway from this article. Very hostile, one-sided review on the issues.
neonate 8y ago
He also avoids mentioning the more common criticism about the name: that it confuses people by sounding like Creative Commons.
scj 8y ago
Shared source has existed for a long time. I don't think anyone would have cared if they just modified the Apache license and gave it a new name... No one should be surprised that programmers react negatively to misleading names and namespace pollution.
jen20 8y ago
This is the part that stuck with me too. After the completely unnecessary parenthetical, I not only think the author is wrong, but also that he is a tone-deaf asshole - and that the group of CEOs (cowardly anonymous for the most part) who worked with him to bring this clause into existence likely exhibit the same trait.
egg_head12 8y ago
Yea it's definitely dismissive of criticism.

gregwebs 8y ago

They have done a poor job communicating this license to the community, and this continues the tradition :( I would like to see the discussion move from the messenger to the idea (now that hopefully everyone actually understand it!). This is a very important topic to figure out.

danieldk 8y ago
This is a very important topic to figure out. IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the Apache 2 License to require cloud users to put some unflattering notice in their documentation: If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. Offer the option to purchase a license to the software without the requirement to display the notice.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Cloud providers aren't actually distributing open source software though unless it is AGPL. So I think this is a good idea, but you also need a better AGPL license too.
  - danieldk 8y ago
    I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back (well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice somewhere visibly ;)). But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.
    - gregwebs 8y ago
      Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers" has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming should be achievable without using licenses. But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).

TotempaaltJ 8y ago

This was my main takeaway from this article. Very hostile, one-sided review on the issues.

neonate 8y ago

He also avoids mentioning the more common criticism about the name: that it confuses people by sounding like Creative Commons.

scj 8y ago

Shared source has existed for a long time. I don't think anyone would have cared if they just modified the Apache license and gave it a new name... No one should be surprised that programmers react negatively to misleading names and namespace pollution.

jen20 8y ago

This is the part that stuck with me too. After the completely unnecessary parenthetical, I not only think the author is wrong, but also that he is a tone-deaf asshole - and that the group of CEOs (cowardly anonymous for the most part) who worked with him to bring this clause into existence likely exhibit the same trait.

egg_head12 8y ago

Yea it's definitely dismissive of criticism.