5 ms·

If you own copyrights you’re not the leech.

Thorrez 3y ago
Who owns the copyrights? According to the article, since 7.0.0, 24.8% of commits are from Tencent, 19.5% from Redis, 6.7% from Alibaba, 5.2% from Huawei, 5.2% from Amazon.
- firstSpeaker 3y ago
  I wonder if there is a qualitative analysis of the commits. Aka, it changed a line of comment vs it introduced a new feature or refactored and increased long term viability, etc.
- mirekrusin 3y ago
  I think you're right. Some projects require signing copyright transfer before making commits (legal document claiming that you are a) copyright holder and b) you transfer those rights to them ie CLA [0]) so single entity holds whole copyrights. They usually have a GHA that checks it when proposing PRs. It doesn't look like redis has any of this. So they run RedisLabs purely on trademark + admin rights on GH on redis/redis. If that's the case then they also cannot legally change licence of code that's already there because they're not sole copyright holders of that code. ps. as a side note that's why ie. SQLite doesn't allow external contributions at all, even though their code is Public Domain – because they can legally claim full copyright/authorship. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement
vasco 3y ago
If you own the copyrights you had money to spend at some point. Other than that unless you are one of the contributors you are leeching, just different flavors of leeching.
- exe34 3y ago
  Is buying the same as leaching now? Words really do get diluted to the point of meaningless...
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    It is if the thing they bought had contributions from many other people but pretty much all of them got nothing for it.
    - ufocia 3y ago
      We don't know what they got. Perhaps some of them were paid to create the contributions. And, in any case, that's OK. The contributors knew or should have known the impact of the license. They could've picked a more restrictive/free license, depending on your point of view. I guess they can still revoke the license. They have not given up their copyrights and the license is arguably not irrevocable.
    - exe34 3y ago
      I'm sure their lawyers will be looking into it, you probably don't need to be concerned!
  - vasco 3y ago
    How does buying a copyright to a name, literally just being able to call it "Redis" equate to purchasing the code contributions that individual contributors make? They bought the rights to the name, not the project, the project was open-source until the license change and belongs to society as a whole.
    - exe34 3y ago
      The project still belongs to society as a whole! You can fork it too! You just can't profit off their future work.
      - vasco 3y ago
        I agree, I didn't make any argument against that, I just don't see the difference between <party with money that bought a name and sells the free work of others> and <party with money that didn't buy a name and sells the free work of others>. My only argument here is that there's not much difference between AWS and Garantia Data from my limited understanding of the situation.

Who owns the copyrights? According to the article, since 7.0.0, 24.8% of commits are from Tencent, 19.5% from Redis, 6.7% from Alibaba, 5.2% from Huawei, 5.2% from Amazon.

firstSpeaker 3y ago
I wonder if there is a qualitative analysis of the commits. Aka, it changed a line of comment vs it introduced a new feature or refactored and increased long term viability, etc.
mirekrusin 3y ago
I think you're right. Some projects require signing copyright transfer before making commits (legal document claiming that you are a) copyright holder and b) you transfer those rights to them ie CLA [0]) so single entity holds whole copyrights. They usually have a GHA that checks it when proposing PRs. It doesn't look like redis has any of this. So they run RedisLabs purely on trademark + admin rights on GH on redis/redis. If that's the case then they also cannot legally change licence of code that's already there because they're not sole copyright holders of that code. ps. as a side note that's why ie. SQLite doesn't allow external contributions at all, even though their code is Public Domain – because they can legally claim full copyright/authorship. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement

vasco 3y ago

If you own the copyrights you had money to spend at some point. Other than that unless you are one of the contributors you are leeching, just different flavors of leeching.

exe34 3y ago
Is buying the same as leaching now? Words really do get diluted to the point of meaningless...
- gkbrk 3y ago
  It is if the thing they bought had contributions from many other people but pretty much all of them got nothing for it.
  - ufocia 3y ago
    We don't know what they got. Perhaps some of them were paid to create the contributions. And, in any case, that's OK. The contributors knew or should have known the impact of the license. They could've picked a more restrictive/free license, depending on your point of view. I guess they can still revoke the license. They have not given up their copyrights and the license is arguably not irrevocable.
  - exe34 3y ago
    I'm sure their lawyers will be looking into it, you probably don't need to be concerned!
- vasco 3y ago
  How does buying a copyright to a name, literally just being able to call it "Redis" equate to purchasing the code contributions that individual contributors make? They bought the rights to the name, not the project, the project was open-source until the license change and belongs to society as a whole.
  - exe34 3y ago
    The project still belongs to society as a whole! You can fork it too! You just can't profit off their future work.
    - vasco 3y ago
      I agree, I didn't make any argument against that, I just don't see the difference between <party with money that bought a name and sells the free work of others> and <party with money that didn't buy a name and sells the free work of others>. My only argument here is that there's not much difference between AWS and Garantia Data from my limited understanding of the situation.