Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

This is pretty stupid. If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license. Or if you want to be "Shared Source"[1] use one of the old MS licenses for that. But don't try to put lipstick on a pig and add a veneer of "openness" by shipping something under an Open Source license + terms that make it very explicitly not Open Source.

As much as I like Redis, and even though Core is still under a plain old OSS license, these shenanigans would make me very suspicious of RedisLabs and reluctant to ever do business with them, or use Redis at all. :-(

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

View on HN

> If you want to license your software under a proprietary license, just license it under a proprietary license.

It's not that simple. I'm about to come out with a 3d-printed product that will sell in a similar market to 3d printers. My product is begging to be open-source hardware since anyone with a 3d-printer can create a large part of it and I'd be ecstatic (and richer) if the product developed a community of followers.

However, MakerBot did this and it was a mistake. Clones quickly came out of china at half the price. MakerBot ended the open-source and developed newer products. My outfit is not big enough to do something like this.

So I have considered using a commons-based license. Makers can play with my product without others undercutting my prices.

So you're planning to bring a proprietary product to market, and make the code "shared source". There's nothing novel about that, and there are already licenses out there specifically for allowing "code available, but you can't redistribute". Using a faux "open source" license like "Apache + Commons Clause" is disingenuous, confusing, and irresponsible.

I need to learn about this. Does shared source actually allow one to arbitrarily use the source? I thought the only distinction was that it didn't allow contributions.

Your problem is probably with distribution and distribution in modified form, i.e. freedoms 2 and 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software#Definition_and_t...

You don't need to distribute or license the software or process you use to produce the printer itself, I suppose.

Help is available to choose a license which fits your needs. https://opensource.org/faq#which-license

All open source licenses would allow competitors to build and sell their own clones, which is what mchahn doesn't want.

Probably you don't have to. If one writes code and the other takes the money, there won't be no Redis software to use in the future.

When Salvatore was sponsored by Redis Labs back in 2015 I contacted them to ask them about their RLEC (Enterprise Cluster) software for my employer, a public multinational.

Had I wanted to use Redis in AWS I would have simply paid for EC2 AWS and paid for Redis Enterprise licenses. This way BOTH companies would make money, survive, and allow me to utilize what I need for my company to make profit.

Paying AWS for Redis service, knowing NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING goes into Salvatore's pocket is, for me, plain stupid.

I want Salvatore, and the rest core contributors whichever they are, to be healthy, happy, motivated, has his financial problems solved and be focused on his amazing software.

I love Redis and I want it to be there forever.

Paying AWS (for Redis service) instead of Salvatore is as smart as being a parent and voting for Herod "for the prosperity of your newly born children".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Innocents

I love Redis and I want it to be there forever.

Likewise. And if they think that going proprietary is the best way to accomplish that, then more power to them. But let's call a spade a spade and not come up with disingenuous nomenclature like "Apache License + Commons Clause" and try to pretend to be "kindof Open Source". That makes as much sense as claiming to be partially pregnant.

I have no affiliation with Redis, it's clearly still open source, it's just not free for some of their users.

If something is not free, it is not open source. The difference between free software and open source is one of ideology and philosophy. In practice, they're the same.

It's clearly not open source. It meets no definition of open source that has ever existed. Even other things like the debian free software guidelines (which date back to 1997. Seee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...) would not consider this free

It's also clear the goal is to "seem" open source by reusing the license names of open source licenses.

Can you point me to the line in the license file that clearly demonstrates Redis is not open source? https://github.com/antirez/redis/blob/unstable/COPYING

As noted even in the initial comment in thus subthread, Redis itself is not under this new license, and thus still Open Source.

Redis core is still Open Source, but anything licensed with this "Commons Clause" abomination is definitely not Open Source. Of course you may choose to disagree, but like it or not, the defacto definition of what it means to be Open Source is the OSI Open Source Definition[1] which says, in part:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

<snip>

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

<snip>

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

If you distribute software under a license that violates those terms, you may try to call it Open Source, but the fact is, the community at large is going to call you on your bullshit.

Personally I'm not a Free Software zealot who denies that closed source, proprietary software has a place in the world. But I go back to what I said before: if you're going to distribute proprietary software, you should just call it what it is and not try to hide behind a thin veneer of "open" by creating some mishmash of license terms that is "almost, but not quite Open Source".

[1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

You may be confusing the actual definition of open source and the literal interpretation of the words "open source". Open source in the context of software doesn't just mean that the source code has been published.

Zealots have stolen every commonly used term for open-source software. There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense. Raymond et al missed a big opportunity to create a more commercial-friendly open-source license by deciding to organize around a philosophy so similar to the one promoted by the FSF.

The insistence that code is not open if the authors try to retain the rights that make it profitable may have cost us access to decades of source code. Things should in fact be exactly the opposite: in order to maintain the exclusive right to resell, software authors should be required to register the source code with the Copyright Office.

There's no reason we need to respect the artifice constructed post-facto by groups like the OSI. "Open-source" can and should be used in its common sense.

The OSI definition is the "common sense" of Open Source and has been for at least 20 years.

No, the number of sanctimonious lectures that occur every day about how someone is using the term "open-source" incorrectly clearly indicates that the OSI's definition is not common sense. The plain meaning of "open-source" is just what it says: the source code is open, i.e., not closed, i.e., accessible to users. Let the OSI and other zealots harp all they want, this type of subversive hijacking is not cool.

A tiny minority of people who don't understand, or don't accept, the OSI Definition, is not evidence that it isn't the defacto definition. It really doesn't matter how much red-faced foot-stomping and fist-table-smashing people indulge in, it doesn't change the simple fact that the OSI Definition is the standard definition of what it means to be "Open Source". If you're not willing to accept that, that's fine, but realize that that ship sailed 20+ years ago.

As battles go, I'd ask if this is really the hill you want to die on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com