4 ms·

The consequences is that these companies get very rich and they eventually take-over the open-source project. See Redis for example, two Israeli dudes took the

by rvnx 4y ago

The consequences is that these companies get very rich and they eventually take-over the open-source project. See Redis for example, two Israeli dudes took the open-source Redis, made tons of money. Everyone is happy: the two founders became rich, the VCs became rich. What about the authors and contributors of Redis ? Well thank you for the gift. As a present you can have the privilege to work for us to keep maintaining your bugs. Don't complain too much. Then you can rewrite the history to make it sound like you created Redis and it's a win, while it's actually just a very smart dude in Italy who wrote most of the software using his own sweat and support from his employer (Pivotal).

kdmytro 4y ago
Did the two Israeli dudes violate the Redis license?
- d3nj4l 4y ago
  Is it possible to do something legal, yet morally wrong?
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    Clearly there was demand for a commercial offering. What should they have done differently?
  - bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
    “By selecting this license I give anyone permission to do X, Y, and Z with my software - provided they do A as well.” “I’m going to chose to do Z and A with your software.” “Moral hazard! Moral hazard!” Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work. If you don’t want people to be able to monetize it, pick a different license.
    - mananaysiempre 4y ago
      > Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work. Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work without going after them with a threat of handcuffs and prison bars. I might not be willing to do or threaten (government-mediated) violence to someone for being an arsehole, and yet consider them an arsehole.
      - ahepp 4y ago
        This seems pretty silly. It's a civil matter, isn't it? Has anyone ever gone to jail for violating an open source license? You could simply choose to not pursue legal action against license violators. Choosing a permissive license and then complaining when people do what you gave them permission to do is just ridiculous.
        dec0dedab0de 4y ago
        You can goto jail for not paying a civil settlement. All laws are eventually backed by violence.
        xyzzyz 4y ago
        > It's a civil matter, isn't it? No. Willful copyright infringement for commercial game is a crime. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).
  - seqizz 4y ago
    It's possible. But there is nothing immoral here.
    - rvnx 4y ago
      External impression, not facts, but intuition seeing how some VCs and startups are acting: He didn't seem to have a real choice, maybe an illusion of choice since (from an external point of view) as he was pinned against the wall. They were using his software commercially and even using the trademark of Salvatore (he was complaining about such uses occasionally). He was broke, I guess that's why he didn't register the trademark. Literally while they raised 40M USD, he was explaining struggling on this board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12506743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12506743 This is actually one year after the first Redis Labs deal :/ Totally not the speech of someone with a multi-million exit in sight. Fast-forward several years later: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19203596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19203596 (with already >1B valuation) If Salvatore just got 10% of the company he would get 100M+ USD. 1%: 10M+ USD. Something must have happened. If I'm wrong and he is super rich, then it's my mistake, but in general it's incredibly easy to get screwed up in a hostile shareholding / corporate environment when in front of you you have experienced lawyers and bankers.
      - bonzini 4y ago
        As long as the stock is illiquid you aren't really settled, are you?
  - anonymousiam 4y ago
    Are you referring to Microsoft's business model?
  - chris_wot 4y ago
    It is, but did they?
xadhominemx 4y ago
If he didn’t want someone commercializing his software, he should used a different license. His own employer is is a commercial wrapper on an open source Project.
api 4y ago
These days liberal OSS licenses are really just free labor for this kind of thing. If you use a very liberal OSS license just make sure you are 100% OK with your work being appropriated this way, including having your name stripped from it and some hustler taking credit. In the long term I think this kind of behavior is going to kill open source for things beyond libraries and building blocks. Everything open on the Internet is destroyed by exploitation of one form or another: appropriation, spam, scams, etc. I've become fond of saying "the Internet is a dark forest."
rsstack 4y ago
> What about the authors and contributors of Redis ? Well thank you for the gift. He was eventually hired by Redis-the-company, allowed them to use the trademark (originally they were Redis Labs which was a compromise with him), went to their conferences, trained their Redis developers (who contributed to Redis-the-open-source), etc.. I assume he was happy with the deal as he spoke positively about them and chose to spend a lot of time with them, and eventually retired after I presume getting a nice amount of money from the decade-long adventure.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Indeed, this is the ideal outcome for all involved. Everyone makes some money, everyone spent the time doing what they enjoyed doing, nobody got shafted, and contributors were able to integrate their contributions while being able to pull the whole app back down for their own (free) use.

by rvnx 4y ago

kdmytro 4y ago

Did the two Israeli dudes violate the Redis license?

d3nj4l 4y ago
Is it possible to do something legal, yet morally wrong?
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  Clearly there was demand for a commercial offering. What should they have done differently?
- bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
  “By selecting this license I give anyone permission to do X, Y, and Z with my software - provided they do A as well.” “I’m going to chose to do Z and A with your software.” “Moral hazard! Moral hazard!” Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work. If you don’t want people to be able to monetize it, pick a different license.
  - mananaysiempre 4y ago
    > Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work. Picking a license indicates what you are willing to have others do with your work without going after them with a threat of handcuffs and prison bars. I might not be willing to do or threaten (government-mediated) violence to someone for being an arsehole, and yet consider them an arsehole.
    - ahepp 4y ago
      This seems pretty silly. It's a civil matter, isn't it? Has anyone ever gone to jail for violating an open source license? You could simply choose to not pursue legal action against license violators. Choosing a permissive license and then complaining when people do what you gave them permission to do is just ridiculous.
      - dec0dedab0de 4y ago
        You can goto jail for not paying a civil settlement. All laws are eventually backed by violence.
      - xyzzyz 4y ago
        > It's a civil matter, isn't it? No. Willful copyright infringement for commercial game is a crime. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a).
- seqizz 4y ago
  It's possible. But there is nothing immoral here.
  - rvnx 4y ago
    External impression, not facts, but intuition seeing how some VCs and startups are acting: He didn't seem to have a real choice, maybe an illusion of choice since (from an external point of view) as he was pinned against the wall. They were using his software commercially and even using the trademark of Salvatore (he was complaining about such uses occasionally). He was broke, I guess that's why he didn't register the trademark. Literally while they raised 40M USD, he was explaining struggling on this board: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12506743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12506743 This is actually one year after the first Redis Labs deal :/ Totally not the speech of someone with a multi-million exit in sight. Fast-forward several years later: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19203596 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19203596 (with already >1B valuation) If Salvatore just got 10% of the company he would get 100M+ USD. 1%: 10M+ USD. Something must have happened. If I'm wrong and he is super rich, then it's my mistake, but in general it's incredibly easy to get screwed up in a hostile shareholding / corporate environment when in front of you you have experienced lawyers and bankers.
    - bonzini 4y ago
      As long as the stock is illiquid you aren't really settled, are you?
- anonymousiam 4y ago
  Are you referring to Microsoft's business model?
- chris_wot 4y ago
  It is, but did they?

xadhominemx 4y ago

If he didn’t want someone commercializing his software, he should used a different license. His own employer is is a commercial wrapper on an open source Project.

api 4y ago

These days liberal OSS licenses are really just free labor for this kind of thing. If you use a very liberal OSS license just make sure you are 100% OK with your work being appropriated this way, including having your name stripped from it and some hustler taking credit. In the long term I think this kind of behavior is going to kill open source for things beyond libraries and building blocks. Everything open on the Internet is destroyed by exploitation of one form or another: appropriation, spam, scams, etc. I've become fond of saying "the Internet is a dark forest."

rsstack 4y ago

> What about the authors and contributors of Redis ? Well thank you for the gift. He was eventually hired by Redis-the-company, allowed them to use the trademark (originally they were Redis Labs which was a compromise with him), went to their conferences, trained their Redis developers (who contributed to Redis-the-open-source), etc.. I assume he was happy with the deal as he spoke positively about them and chose to spend a lot of time with them, and eventually retired after I presume getting a nice amount of money from the decade-long adventure.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Indeed, this is the ideal outcome for all involved. Everyone makes some money, everyone spent the time doing what they enjoyed doing, nobody got shafted, and contributors were able to integrate their contributions while being able to pull the whole app back down for their own (free) use.