3 ms·

When open source became popular, it was designed for practitioners to experiment with and build on, while contributing back to the community. [...] open-source

When open source became popular, it was designed for practitioners to experiment with and build on, while contributing back to the community. [...] open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to take and sell. Uhm no. If you are using the BSD license or the Apache license, you are explicitly saying: you can use this software as you want, just give me credit, and don't sue me if it does not work. Many companies have used the BSD TCP/IP stack and included it in proprietary software, including the BSD projects. This is something that the non-copyleft open source licenses explicitly permit and has been encouraged by a lot of projects. Using open source software in the cloud is a modern variant of it. When it comes to copyleft licensing, the goal is that the user of a program or service (in the case of AGPL) can obtain the source code of a program and redistribute it under the same terms. The goal of open source was never to protect (VC-backed) companies that want to pretent to do open source, but then object when other people earn money with their software. What you are looking for is a non-open source license, optionally with the possibility to make the source available. That's fine. But please stop hijacking the history of open source and diluting the reputation of open source licenses by calling it Apache 2 License + Commons Clause. Commons Clause is not open source and had nothing to do with it. 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 does this poison even do on Hacker News?

gregwebs 8y ago
I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause" because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service. No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.
  - gregwebs 8y ago
    Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive. A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?
    - lozenge 8y ago
      It's incompatible with all open source licences.
    - detaro 8y ago
      For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.
- detaro 8y ago
  Note that representatives of the Apache Foundation have repeatedly requested to not use this misleading naming scheme, which has seemingly been totally ignored.
  - gregwebs 8y ago
    Is there a reference for that? That would convince me that it is a bad idea to use that naming scheme then.
    - detaro 8y ago
      a few links: back in may: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomment-415980472 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomme... https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 (also an Apache Board member)
ABS 8y ago
it is telling that he opens with a factually wrong "fact": "I have invested in the companies behind many open-source projects: [...] Redis" (linking to RedisLabs' website) except RedisLabs is NOT "the company behind Redis"
- marshray 8y ago
  Well, the confusion sure seems intentional. "On July 15, 2015, the creator of Redis and lead developer, Salvatore Sanfilippo, joined Redis Labs to lead open source development, and Redis Labs became the official sponsor of the open source project." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redis_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redis_Labs

gregwebs 8y ago

I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause" because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service. No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive. A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?
  - lozenge 8y ago
    It's incompatible with all open source licences.
  - detaro 8y ago
    For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.
detaro 8y ago
Note that representatives of the Apache Foundation have repeatedly requested to not use this misleading naming scheme, which has seemingly been totally ignored.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Is there a reference for that? That would convince me that it is a bad idea to use that naming scheme then.
  - detaro 8y ago
    a few links: back in may: https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment-392607283 https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment... https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomment-415980472 https://github.com/fossas/commons-clause/issues/8#issuecomme... https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 https://twitter.com/ted_dunning/status/1038521197208600578 (also an Apache Board member)

ABS 8y ago

it is telling that he opens with a factually wrong "fact": "I have invested in the companies behind many open-source projects: [...] Redis" (linking to RedisLabs' website) except RedisLabs is NOT "the company behind Redis"

marshray 8y ago
Well, the confusion sure seems intentional. "On July 15, 2015, the creator of Redis and lead developer, Salvatore Sanfilippo, joined Redis Labs to lead open source development, and Redis Labs became the official sponsor of the open source project." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redis_Labs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redis_Labs