5 ms·

It's not open source, as it is licensed under Commons Clause according to the README, which according to the FAQ is not open source. I'd be interested in knowi

by cetra3 7y ago

It's not open source, as it is licensed under Commons Clause according to the README, which according to the FAQ is not open source. I'd be interested in knowing whether the commons clause license has been challenged as the wording is rather simple

adrianN 7y ago
I don't understand why projects don't simply use AGPL and offer a commercial license as an alternative.
- fiberoptick 7y ago
  There's a subtle difference between AGPL and the Commons Clause licenses. AGPL requires network-accessible code to be disclosed & licensed under an AGPL-compatible license. The Commons Clause license outright prohibits SaaS-style offerings of the licensed code. A lot of startups licensing their code under AGPL might still have AWS et al. eat their lunch, becuase all Amazon needs to do to remain compliant is to publish any modifications made to the AGPL-ed code.
  - galaxyLogic 7y ago
    It seems to me the difference is not so subtle. As I understand from https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ you can use Commons Clause licensed code-library as part of your commercial application without having to make your source-code available whereas with AGPL you would have to. But I may be wrong?
    - orangeshark 7y ago
      Commons Clause is added ontop of an exisiting FOSS license. So it will be whatever requirements the base license plus an anti-commercial restriction preventing others from offering SaaS services.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    AGPL is super-banned at all companies because lawyers deem it a huge risk. In particular it's banned at Amazon. IIRC you aren't even allowed to have AGPL software on your laptop at all.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      In my experience enterprise lawyers deem everything they can't be 100% certain about a huge risk. Legal CYA.
- stockkid 7y ago
  Another approach I have seen is BSL (Business Source License), which is kind of like Commons Clause in that it prohibits commercial offerings of the software, but after a rolling time limit, converts to an open source license. I might be wrong, so please correct me. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroach...
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Yes, if you're choosing between Commons Clause and BSL please choose the latter. Because (1) it has a way less confusing name and mechanism of action, and (2) it acknowledges that some people may care about an actual OSS license for your software, and makes it clear how that might be achieved.
codycraven 7y ago
I get that Commons Clause isn't "open source" but I really love the concept. If a company wishes to productize a creator's work it seems reasonable to pay the creator to alternatively license it (if the company doesn't want to put their secrets out to the public). Meanwhile the creator gets to share their work freely with anyone who wishes to use it as a component of their own product/software in the spirit of open source.
- jamie-vesoft 7y ago
  That's exactly what Common Clause is pursuing IMO.
jamie-vesoft 7y ago
As far as I know, Common Clause can be attached to any open-source projects. The main purpose is to prevent cloud providers monetizing from the project without contributing back. So Nebula Graph's main license is Apache 2.0, meaning that to most users it is open source, no different than any other open source projects. :)
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > to most users it is open source Discriminating by field of endeavor is contrary to the definition of open source software, and has been since before the term even existed. It's not open source, it's effectively Shared Source and developers who care about open source should stay away from this.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  The real question that has to be answered, and this is the hard one, when does the product begin to be monetized? Let’s say it’s a full DB option as part of AWS RDS (or whatever that graph DB equivalent is). That probably is clearly monetizing the product. But what if they completely abstract the API and not expose the original one, it’s just the backing engine for a graph DB product? Now moving away from a direct product, what if it’s just the backing DB AWS uses for managing all of their infrastructure? It’s not being directly monetized at that point but it might be the most critical component for the AWS operations, which means that it is helping them monetize other products. Do they owe in this case? (I’m speaking about the license here, not whether or not they should or should not based on goodness or feature improvements they want to pay to see). As the DB moves further away from profit centers in an organization, at what point is it no longer being monetized? Personally, I’d like to see a model where the OSS developers can and are paid in all of these cases for their work, but I’m not always sure there is anything better than a contract to support and build new features (classic OSS support model).
thunderbong 7y ago
Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with expecting payment for your work if someone else decides to sell it. Why should 'open source' get conflated with free (as in gratis)? For me, open source has been an incredible way to learn software - it's syntax, it's architecture, it's control flow, it's gotchas. From my understanding of the license [1], you can see the code, learn from it, do whatever you want with it, modify it if you so please, improve on it, whatever. The only thing you cannot do is sell it. Because you've taken someone else's idea in the first place. I see this happening all the freakin' time and it pisses me off no end. If I suggest a software to someone, the first thing they as is 'Is it open source?' What they really mean is 'Is it free?' Why? If someone is expecting to get paid for creating software for others, why is the feeling not reciprocated towards the person who's created the software in the first place? From what I've seen, most managers and software engineers, expect to get paid for their work but all the software which helps them make that money, they expect for free. I find that attitude extremely hypocritical, honestly. [1]: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Why should open source get conflated with things that are NOT open source? Putting restrictions around "commercial" use (which is notoriously hard to define) is not open source. Discriminating against fields of endeavor is not open source. If you want to get paid for developing genuine open source software, there are things you can do to that effect. Get paid for support (even maintaining the code is support). Offer to highlight companies that support your software (even if the highlighting is quite trivial, this is enough to unlock 'marketing' expenses and make it easier for business-oriented entities to support you). Start a Patreon page. There are lots of things that can be done without adding any licensing restrictions.
  - brobdingnagians 7y ago
    > "without adding any license restrictions" That would imply public domain. Every license has some licensing restrictions. MIT, BSD, and associated ones are closest to that, but still have restrictions. "Open source" in the literal sense in English is where the source is open to be looked at by everyone. Lots of software is like that, even fully commercial offerings. AGPL, GPL, and co have pretty drastic limitations on commercial usage (much more than the Commons Clause), but are obviously open source. The author should decide licensing, and if the source is available to be perused-- the English language would tend to call that, "open source". I think "OSI Approved Open Source License" would be a better phrase than the linguistically vague "open source". English has proper nouns for that sort of thing, and if we can go around writing "GNU/Linux", I think specifying the _type_ of open source license really isn't too much to ask for.
e12e 7y ago
Oh wow, this really is just source available, isn't it? > For purposes of the foregoing, "Sell" means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other considerationon (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software. So, you cannot pay a contractor to set this up, because they can't deliver to you if they charge for setup or hosting?
jamie-vesoft 7y ago
Really appreciate the feedback and discussion! We will seriously consider the license issue. Please DO let us know if you have any better license options than Common Clause that can help provide an open-source project for the community while stop cloud vendors from monetizing without contributing back? Thanks again!
- pbowyer 7y ago
  I follow a few licensing blogs, and I know people are talking about and working on alternatives to Common Clause. As far as I can tell, all will disappoint those who believe the OSI's definition of "Open Source" is the one true open source. My bookmarks: https://katedowninglaw.com/blog/ https://katedowninglaw.com/blog/ https://writing.kemitchell.com/ https://writing.kemitchell.com/ (blog & the blogroll for finding others). See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awriting.kemitchell.com+commons+clause https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awriting.kemitchell.co... http://www.blueoakcouncil.org/ http://www.blueoakcouncil.org/
  - jamie-vesoft 7y ago
    Much appreciated! We will definitely check these out and re-consider our license.

by cetra3 7y ago

adrianN 7y ago

I don't understand why projects don't simply use AGPL and offer a commercial license as an alternative.

fiberoptick 7y ago
There's a subtle difference between AGPL and the Commons Clause licenses. AGPL requires network-accessible code to be disclosed & licensed under an AGPL-compatible license. The Commons Clause license outright prohibits SaaS-style offerings of the licensed code. A lot of startups licensing their code under AGPL might still have AWS et al. eat their lunch, becuase all Amazon needs to do to remain compliant is to publish any modifications made to the AGPL-ed code.
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  It seems to me the difference is not so subtle. As I understand from https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ you can use Commons Clause licensed code-library as part of your commercial application without having to make your source-code available whereas with AGPL you would have to. But I may be wrong?
  - orangeshark 7y ago
    Commons Clause is added ontop of an exisiting FOSS license. So it will be whatever requirements the base license plus an anti-commercial restriction preventing others from offering SaaS services.
- adrianN 7y ago
  AGPL is super-banned at all companies because lawyers deem it a huge risk. In particular it's banned at Amazon. IIRC you aren't even allowed to have AGPL software on your laptop at all.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    In my experience enterprise lawyers deem everything they can't be 100% certain about a huge risk. Legal CYA.
stockkid 7y ago
Another approach I have seen is BSL (Business Source License), which is kind of like Commons Clause in that it prohibits commercial offerings of the software, but after a rolling time limit, converts to an open source license. I might be wrong, so please correct me. https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroachdb/ https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroach...
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Yes, if you're choosing between Commons Clause and BSL please choose the latter. Because (1) it has a way less confusing name and mechanism of action, and (2) it acknowledges that some people may care about an actual OSS license for your software, and makes it clear how that might be achieved.

codycraven 7y ago

I get that Commons Clause isn't "open source" but I really love the concept. If a company wishes to productize a creator's work it seems reasonable to pay the creator to alternatively license it (if the company doesn't want to put their secrets out to the public). Meanwhile the creator gets to share their work freely with anyone who wishes to use it as a component of their own product/software in the spirit of open source.

jamie-vesoft 7y ago
That's exactly what Common Clause is pursuing IMO.

jamie-vesoft 7y ago

As far as I know, Common Clause can be attached to any open-source projects. The main purpose is to prevent cloud providers monetizing from the project without contributing back. So Nebula Graph's main license is Apache 2.0, meaning that to most users it is open source, no different than any other open source projects. :)

zozbot234 7y ago
> to most users it is open source Discriminating by field of endeavor is contrary to the definition of open source software, and has been since before the term even existed. It's not open source, it's effectively Shared Source and developers who care about open source should stay away from this.
bluejekyll 7y ago
The real question that has to be answered, and this is the hard one, when does the product begin to be monetized? Let’s say it’s a full DB option as part of AWS RDS (or whatever that graph DB equivalent is). That probably is clearly monetizing the product. But what if they completely abstract the API and not expose the original one, it’s just the backing engine for a graph DB product? Now moving away from a direct product, what if it’s just the backing DB AWS uses for managing all of their infrastructure? It’s not being directly monetized at that point but it might be the most critical component for the AWS operations, which means that it is helping them monetize other products. Do they owe in this case? (I’m speaking about the license here, not whether or not they should or should not based on goodness or feature improvements they want to pay to see). As the DB moves further away from profit centers in an organization, at what point is it no longer being monetized? Personally, I’d like to see a model where the OSS developers can and are paid in all of these cases for their work, but I’m not always sure there is anything better than a contract to support and build new features (classic OSS support model).

thunderbong 7y ago

Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with expecting payment for your work if someone else decides to sell it. Why should 'open source' get conflated with free (as in gratis)? For me, open source has been an incredible way to learn software - it's syntax, it's architecture, it's control flow, it's gotchas. From my understanding of the license [1], you can see the code, learn from it, do whatever you want with it, modify it if you so please, improve on it, whatever. The only thing you cannot do is sell it. Because you've taken someone else's idea in the first place. I see this happening all the freakin' time and it pisses me off no end. If I suggest a software to someone, the first thing they as is 'Is it open source?' What they really mean is 'Is it free?' Why? If someone is expecting to get paid for creating software for others, why is the feeling not reciprocated towards the person who's created the software in the first place? From what I've seen, most managers and software engineers, expect to get paid for their work but all the software which helps them make that money, they expect for free. I find that attitude extremely hypocritical, honestly. [1]: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/

zozbot234 7y ago
Why should open source get conflated with things that are NOT open source? Putting restrictions around "commercial" use (which is notoriously hard to define) is not open source. Discriminating against fields of endeavor is not open source. If you want to get paid for developing genuine open source software, there are things you can do to that effect. Get paid for support (even maintaining the code is support). Offer to highlight companies that support your software (even if the highlighting is quite trivial, this is enough to unlock 'marketing' expenses and make it easier for business-oriented entities to support you). Start a Patreon page. There are lots of things that can be done without adding any licensing restrictions.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  > "without adding any license restrictions" That would imply public domain. Every license has some licensing restrictions. MIT, BSD, and associated ones are closest to that, but still have restrictions. "Open source" in the literal sense in English is where the source is open to be looked at by everyone. Lots of software is like that, even fully commercial offerings. AGPL, GPL, and co have pretty drastic limitations on commercial usage (much more than the Commons Clause), but are obviously open source. The author should decide licensing, and if the source is available to be perused-- the English language would tend to call that, "open source". I think "OSI Approved Open Source License" would be a better phrase than the linguistically vague "open source". English has proper nouns for that sort of thing, and if we can go around writing "GNU/Linux", I think specifying the _type_ of open source license really isn't too much to ask for.

e12e 7y ago

Oh wow, this really is just source available, isn't it? > For purposes of the foregoing, "Sell" means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other considerationon (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software. So, you cannot pay a contractor to set this up, because they can't deliver to you if they charge for setup or hosting?

jamie-vesoft 7y ago

Really appreciate the feedback and discussion! We will seriously consider the license issue. Please DO let us know if you have any better license options than Common Clause that can help provide an open-source project for the community while stop cloud vendors from monetizing without contributing back? Thanks again!

pbowyer 7y ago
I follow a few licensing blogs, and I know people are talking about and working on alternatives to Common Clause. As far as I can tell, all will disappoint those who believe the OSI's definition of "Open Source" is the one true open source. My bookmarks: https://katedowninglaw.com/blog/ https://katedowninglaw.com/blog/ https://writing.kemitchell.com/ https://writing.kemitchell.com/ (blog & the blogroll for finding others). See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awriting.kemitchell.com+commons+clause https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awriting.kemitchell.co... http://www.blueoakcouncil.org/ http://www.blueoakcouncil.org/
- jamie-vesoft 7y ago
  Much appreciated! We will definitely check these out and re-consider our license.