5 ms·

With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building s

by crote 2y ago

With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone. Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole, the community which had grown around Redis and the future of the software. Probably a wise decision from a business perspective, but that doesn't make it any less of a rug pull from a community perspective. You're right that no pre-relicense code was lost. People could and did fork. But something far more valuable was lost: the community's trust. First they relicensed the code solely for their own benefit, now they tried to take over third-party libraries and started behaving in a hostile way towards the community forks. Why would anyone volunteer their time and effort when it is mainly going to benefit a company which is so openly antagonistic against its volunteers? After all, what's the next shady move going to be?

kunley 2y ago
It is really hard to believe that no one defends antirez&co as protecting themselves from greedy overpriced SaaS businesses who were parasiting others hard work. What about them saases breaking a social contract of giving reasonable prices adequate to the effort put into a product (or a wrapper around the product)?
- simonw 2y ago
  It's possible to hold both positions at the same time.
  - kunley 2y ago
    In the world of legal consequences it is not. Or please explain.
    - kunley 2y ago
      Erm I am not sure if I was understood correctly - I meant legal consequences from the perspective of redis guys on one side, and saas guys on the other side.. One simply can't admit that they both were doing a valid thing
- pydry 2y ago
  Yeah, this is weird. The one restriction is one you probably dont care about because you're not amazon or azure yet some people still freak out like youve taken their toys away. Truly odd.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    It's not that weird. With a FOSS license, I know I can use a program for anything I choose to and the terms will never change. I might launch a startup with a friend tomorrow using a package and complying with its license terms, and a million dollars later we're still legally entitled to use it. Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope. The restrictions Redis added aren't directly onerous to 99.999% of users, but now the world is divided into people who are allowed to use it at will, and people who can only use it in certain ways (or not at all). That's an enormous change from a FOSS license. And if they change it today specifically to lock out Amazon, will they change it again tomorrow to lock out my startup? The thing is, now that they've established precedent, there's no way of knowing what'll happen later. Again, I know I can use GPL or MIT or BSD software for anything I want as long as I play by the exact same rules as everyone else. There's nothing that says you can use it but I can't. The difference between Free to non-Free is vast, even when I'm not affected (yet).
    - pydry 2y ago
      Your answer is "it's not that weird what if I wanted to launch a startup competing with azure and amazon"? Well, Id say in that case youve got waaaay bigger problems than a license. >Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope. No, it's very much a fallacious slippery slope. Constraints are the very essence of licenses and contracts.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Lots of people defend these licenses on exactly those grounds. I, too, find it pretty mystifying that this seems to be a minority perspective here. At least this seems to be the case among the people who speak up when this comes up here. It's hard to know if there is a less noisy majority who feels differently about it.
  - xvector 2y ago
    I think the "silent majority" is just fine with this change. The OSS "extremists" will certainly be the noisiest about this - everyone else will continue on with life as usual, especially if they have an understanding of the concept of business pressures.
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      That's what I think too, but it's hard to know for certain.
- bandrami 2y ago
  If you just call SaaS "hosting" does that change your view of things? Because I remember when commercial hosting for free software was actively encouraged.
mavelikara 2y ago
> But something far more valuable was lost: the community's trust. But before that the community turned its back on Redis Ltd., when it let those cloud offerings from others thrive. Once the “community” got that going, these consequences were inevitable.
jart 2y ago
Open source is a gift economy. Receiving a gift does not form a social contract that entitles you to future gifts. It is not a "rug pull" for someone to stop giving you gifts. The old versions of Redis are yours for all time. No one can take that away from you. In fact, Redis is still giving you gifts to this day, just with a different wrapping. The new license seems perfectly reasonable, given how much companies like Amazon have exploited the gift economy to the point where it threatens these startups survival.
- sangnoir 2y ago
  > Open source is a gift economy. Receiving a gift does not form a social contract that entitles you to future gifts I think op was talking about contributors, who essentially gifted back. One might take offense if they were exchanging gifts with someone, and they open a pop-up store and sell what was gifted. Also, it's also a tiny bit hypocritical to expect revenue sharing with Amazon without doing the same for contributors.
  - jart 2y ago
    Redis has a CLA so contributors can't use their gifts as leverage to control others. https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-license-agreement/ https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...
    - collingreen 2y ago
      I don't think you should conflate CONTROL with resentment or distaste or feeling betrayed or feeling misled. They aren't the same.
      - jart 2y ago
        Even without a CLA, Redis was originally licensed BSD. Releasing code under a BSD license is making a promise that you are OK with people using your code for commercial purposes. If you as a developer express personal feelings of dissatisfaction that someone is doing with your gift what you gave them permission to do, in such a way that could be construed as reneging on your promise, then that would make you dishonorable and untrustworthy.
maccard 2y ago
> With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one Funny how when these license changes started happening people said the exact opposite - that the license is the license and if they didn’t want to be Jeff’d they should have used a difference license.
lnxg33k1 2y ago
[flagged]
kemitchell 2y ago
No well-known permissive open software license includes any promise to do future development, much less to make it available under the same license terms. A key draw of permissive licensing is that anyone can fork and put new work under new and different terms. Who would promise perpetual maintenance for nothing? What organization would sign up to be the only one that can't change terms for improvements? I don't think "social contract" makes sense here. There's no sovereign power involved. In the sense used, "social contract" essentially means "not in the contract"---as in not in the terms. It's a back door for saying things that were never put down ought to be treated like they were in the license file, just because one side really wants them and doesn't want to DIY or pay for them. If there are disappointed expectations, that's another thing. But being even very disappointed, and being able to find other like-minded people who would prefer no disruption and new freebies forever, doesn't make unfounded expectations enforceable, nor should it. I'd be extremely careful speaking of any singular "community". And of assuming that everyone in it expected Redis or another similar project to work just like Linux or other exceptional projects. Most devs dealing with open source have a project relicense---among many others than simply grind to a halt---at some point in their career. For some devs, Redis may have been the first. Others "adopted" Redis knowing the risk and accepting it.
nothrabannosir 2y ago
> With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one Says who? I completely disagree. A license only applies to the current work done. It does not compel someone to keep dedicating time to a project for free because they also did that in the past. People are allowed to change, even if they once released some code under a different license. Is the old code still available under the same license ? That’s the only contract I care about , both legal and social. I am just as much a member of this FLOSS community as others , and I never got the memo about this social contract story. I don’t think it’s true. My trust hasn’t been affected at all. I understand your point I just get annoyed being lumped into it. Not everyone feels that way. (But of course my opinion does matter less than actual contributors to Redis ! That’s totally fair.)
bruce511 2y ago
I read this as you saying... You gave us a bunch of stuff for free. You are now putting some conditions on that for new stuff you do. And that makes me sad. I get the "feelings" part of this. When the world changes, even for the better, it can make us sad. Equally this license better supports the stuff I am getting for free, and penalizes some giant corporation with buckets of money. And I keep getting stuff for free. So (frankly) I'm happy. So meh. Is trust broken? Is the community harmed? Should we expect more moves along these lines? Do I see all decisions as clearly black and white - good or evil? Or is there more nuance? For those upset at AWS no longer getting Redis for free, you can of course fork it and carry on developing for AWS. Those who don't like new redis can carry on running the old one. Those who want new redis can, well, download and use it. Frankly they didn't hurt my feelings. They're developing. I still get it. I'm happy, not sad.
space_oddity 2y ago
And it's obviouse that when contributors feel their efforts may be co-opted or undermined, they’re less likely to engage
KingMob 2y ago
> Why would anyone volunteer their time and effort when it is mainly going to benefit a company which is so openly antagonistic against its volunteers? Thing is, this sentence could equally be applied to the big cloud free riders. Why should anyone, business or volunteer, write software that benefits FAANGs that don't pay their fair share?
- happyraul 2y ago
  I'm no fan of FAANGs, but what is "their fair share"? The entire point of OSS is that they don't have a fair share to pay. It's entirely voluntary.
  - KingMob 2y ago
    That's a strong argument against open source then, at least as currently formulated.

by crote 2y ago

kunley 2y ago

It is really hard to believe that no one defends antirez&co as protecting themselves from greedy overpriced SaaS businesses who were parasiting others hard work. What about them saases breaking a social contract of giving reasonable prices adequate to the effort put into a product (or a wrapper around the product)?

simonw 2y ago
It's possible to hold both positions at the same time.
- kunley 2y ago
  In the world of legal consequences it is not. Or please explain.
  - kunley 2y ago
    Erm I am not sure if I was understood correctly - I meant legal consequences from the perspective of redis guys on one side, and saas guys on the other side.. One simply can't admit that they both were doing a valid thing
pydry 2y ago
Yeah, this is weird. The one restriction is one you probably dont care about because you're not amazon or azure yet some people still freak out like youve taken their toys away. Truly odd.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  It's not that weird. With a FOSS license, I know I can use a program for anything I choose to and the terms will never change. I might launch a startup with a friend tomorrow using a package and complying with its license terms, and a million dollars later we're still legally entitled to use it. Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope. The restrictions Redis added aren't directly onerous to 99.999% of users, but now the world is divided into people who are allowed to use it at will, and people who can only use it in certain ways (or not at all). That's an enormous change from a FOSS license. And if they change it today specifically to lock out Amazon, will they change it again tomorrow to lock out my startup? The thing is, now that they've established precedent, there's no way of knowing what'll happen later. Again, I know I can use GPL or MIT or BSD software for anything I want as long as I play by the exact same rules as everyone else. There's nothing that says you can use it but I can't. The difference between Free to non-Free is vast, even when I'm not affected (yet).
  - pydry 2y ago
    Your answer is "it's not that weird what if I wanted to launch a startup competing with azure and amazon"? Well, Id say in that case youve got waaaay bigger problems than a license. >Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope. No, it's very much a fallacious slippery slope. Constraints are the very essence of licenses and contracts.
sanderjd 2y ago
Lots of people defend these licenses on exactly those grounds. I, too, find it pretty mystifying that this seems to be a minority perspective here. At least this seems to be the case among the people who speak up when this comes up here. It's hard to know if there is a less noisy majority who feels differently about it.
- xvector 2y ago
  I think the "silent majority" is just fine with this change. The OSS "extremists" will certainly be the noisiest about this - everyone else will continue on with life as usual, especially if they have an understanding of the concept of business pressures.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    That's what I think too, but it's hard to know for certain.
bandrami 2y ago
If you just call SaaS "hosting" does that change your view of things? Because I remember when commercial hosting for free software was actively encouraged.

mavelikara 2y ago

> But something far more valuable was lost: the community's trust. But before that the community turned its back on Redis Ltd., when it let those cloud offerings from others thrive. Once the “community” got that going, these consequences were inevitable.

jart 2y ago

Open source is a gift economy. Receiving a gift does not form a social contract that entitles you to future gifts. It is not a "rug pull" for someone to stop giving you gifts. The old versions of Redis are yours for all time. No one can take that away from you. In fact, Redis is still giving you gifts to this day, just with a different wrapping. The new license seems perfectly reasonable, given how much companies like Amazon have exploited the gift economy to the point where it threatens these startups survival.

sangnoir 2y ago
> Open source is a gift economy. Receiving a gift does not form a social contract that entitles you to future gifts I think op was talking about contributors, who essentially gifted back. One might take offense if they were exchanging gifts with someone, and they open a pop-up store and sell what was gifted. Also, it's also a tiny bit hypocritical to expect revenue sharing with Amazon without doing the same for contributors.
- jart 2y ago
  Redis has a CLA so contributors can't use their gifts as leverage to control others. https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-license-agreement/ https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...
  - collingreen 2y ago
    I don't think you should conflate CONTROL with resentment or distaste or feeling betrayed or feeling misled. They aren't the same.
    - jart 2y ago
      Even without a CLA, Redis was originally licensed BSD. Releasing code under a BSD license is making a promise that you are OK with people using your code for commercial purposes. If you as a developer express personal feelings of dissatisfaction that someone is doing with your gift what you gave them permission to do, in such a way that could be construed as reneging on your promise, then that would make you dishonorable and untrustworthy.

maccard 2y ago

> With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one Funny how when these license changes started happening people said the exact opposite - that the license is the license and if they didn’t want to be Jeff’d they should have used a difference license.

lnxg33k1 2y ago

[flagged]

kemitchell 2y ago

No well-known permissive open software license includes any promise to do future development, much less to make it available under the same license terms. A key draw of permissive licensing is that anyone can fork and put new work under new and different terms. Who would promise perpetual maintenance for nothing? What organization would sign up to be the only one that can't change terms for improvements? I don't think "social contract" makes sense here. There's no sovereign power involved. In the sense used, "social contract" essentially means "not in the contract"---as in not in the terms. It's a back door for saying things that were never put down ought to be treated like they were in the license file, just because one side really wants them and doesn't want to DIY or pay for them. If there are disappointed expectations, that's another thing. But being even very disappointed, and being able to find other like-minded people who would prefer no disruption and new freebies forever, doesn't make unfounded expectations enforceable, nor should it. I'd be extremely careful speaking of any singular "community". And of assuming that everyone in it expected Redis or another similar project to work just like Linux or other exceptional projects. Most devs dealing with open source have a project relicense---among many others than simply grind to a halt---at some point in their career. For some devs, Redis may have been the first. Others "adopted" Redis knowing the risk and accepting it.

nothrabannosir 2y ago

> With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one Says who? I completely disagree. A license only applies to the current work done. It does not compel someone to keep dedicating time to a project for free because they also did that in the past. People are allowed to change, even if they once released some code under a different license. Is the old code still available under the same license ? That’s the only contract I care about , both legal and social. I am just as much a member of this FLOSS community as others , and I never got the memo about this social contract story. I don’t think it’s true. My trust hasn’t been affected at all. I understand your point I just get annoyed being lumped into it. Not everyone feels that way. (But of course my opinion does matter less than actual contributors to Redis ! That’s totally fair.)

bruce511 2y ago

I read this as you saying... You gave us a bunch of stuff for free. You are now putting some conditions on that for new stuff you do. And that makes me sad. I get the "feelings" part of this. When the world changes, even for the better, it can make us sad. Equally this license better supports the stuff I am getting for free, and penalizes some giant corporation with buckets of money. And I keep getting stuff for free. So (frankly) I'm happy. So meh. Is trust broken? Is the community harmed? Should we expect more moves along these lines? Do I see all decisions as clearly black and white - good or evil? Or is there more nuance? For those upset at AWS no longer getting Redis for free, you can of course fork it and carry on developing for AWS. Those who don't like new redis can carry on running the old one. Those who want new redis can, well, download and use it. Frankly they didn't hurt my feelings. They're developing. I still get it. I'm happy, not sad.

space_oddity 2y ago

And it's obviouse that when contributors feel their efforts may be co-opted or undermined, they’re less likely to engage

KingMob 2y ago

> Why would anyone volunteer their time and effort when it is mainly going to benefit a company which is so openly antagonistic against its volunteers? Thing is, this sentence could equally be applied to the big cloud free riders. Why should anyone, business or volunteer, write software that benefits FAANGs that don't pay their fair share?

happyraul 2y ago
I'm no fan of FAANGs, but what is "their fair share"? The entire point of OSS is that they don't have a fair share to pay. It's entirely voluntary.
- KingMob 2y ago
  That's a strong argument against open source then, at least as currently formulated.