Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrjn | Hacker News Reader

First, to be clear, we are the authors of this software, so our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software. We have done that and we are obviously not trying to mislead anyone. We think our licensing statement is easy to understand. We have not changed the Apache license terms. We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together.

If we had changed the Apache license, we would not have referred to it by that name. But given we have not changed the Apache terms, it seems to us more confusing to arbitrarily refer to those terms by a different name.

My take is that Apache + Commons Clause is more liberal than AGPL, something I can expand on in my blog post -- that's clear from our users, who actually appreciated the switch from AGPL to the current license.

View on HN

> We have not changed the Apache license terms.

Yes, you have.

> We have added an additional term (Commons Clause) and clearly stated that we are applying the two together.

Adding the Commons Clause changes the terms of the Apache license quite substantially, which is obviously the reason you added it.

The website says "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", and Sir_Cmpwn says it should say "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 + Commons Clause license" to not be misleading. Are you saying you don't want to make that really simple change?

Curious, what did come from your communication with the Apache Foundation after they voiced their concerns about your usage of the label "Apache License"?

https://github.com/dgraph-io/dgraph/issues/2416#issuecomment...

This stuff really sours me on the otherwise fairly reasonable license and its users.

You are free to license your software as you wish, and I am not questioning your right to. There are three separate issues here.

>our responsibility is to choose our license terms and clearly communicate them to those who want to use the software

You are not doing this. Your website reads "Dgraph is available under an Apache v2.0 based liberal license", which is technically true but also very dishonest. Your software does not use the Apache 2.0 license, and users of it should not expect to enjoy the freedoms granted to them by the Apache 2.0 license.

>We have not changed the Apache license terms

This is not true. The Apache license explicitly grants freedoms which the following

>We have added an additional term

changes. Don't wrangle words into passable lies, you're not talking to idiots. Your wording is misleading and dishonest, which are two qualities you should be trying very hard not to associate with your brand. So far you're not doing well. No one is questioning your right to license the software as you wish. But you are not proud of your choice and are using slimy and dishonest language on your marketing material to hide your shame and trick potential users.

A separate issue is the subjective one, which is whether or not the commons clause is liberal. I think you are being dishonest here. There are widely accepted definitions for "liberal" among the open source community. The main differentiating factor of a liberal license is that it's not viral. Most people informed on this subject can then neatly and objectively file licenses into liberal and restrictive categories, with licenses like MIT, BSD, and Apache in the liberal camp, and the GPL family of licenses in the restrictive camp. However, the distinction has always been subjective, and nothing like the OSD exists. Additionally, the distinction is only ever applied in the comparison of open source licenses, of which yours is not a member. The realm of proprietary licenses masquarading as open source licenses is unexplored territory, and I'm drawing a line: no matter how restrictive a license like AGPL is, a license which is not even open source in the first place is far from liberal.

The third issue is whether or not using the Commons Clause is the right thing for Dgraph to do. In my opinion, it's a slap in the face to everyone who ever used or especially to anyone who ever contributed to Dgraph. In fact, as I was researching dgraph a bit more to see how you approached this issue, it also occurs to me that I can't find any discussion where existing Dgraph contributors were consulted on the matter of relicensing their work, which seems to me that your license change was not only distasteful and harmful to your project, but also illegal. Were all of the contributors consulted and their permission obtained to change the license? I'll certainly be consulting them if not.

Can you please stop sanctimoniously sprinkling “dishonest” all over?

It accurately describes the behavior I'm talking about. Would you prefer I spice it up with some more "disingenous" and "misleading" too?

This is so overdramatic and unfortunate - a company puts code out there, does good work, largely follows OSS, and this topic gets derailed.

They degrade on the 'de facto' definition of OS by saying that others may not sell it.

That's it.

Comments like yours are why I don't interact with open source at all.

These freedoms are important, and by removing them the whole license is practically undermined. They forgot about the rights of the users and contributors while they were busy thinking about the rights of the maintainers. To quote something I said in a private email:

>The Commons Clause nullifies pretty much any privledge granted by the original license, further rendering it useless. For example, the permission to make and publish changes to the work, or reuse the code elsewhere. Is the Commons Clause viral? If I take a small function from RedisLabs and incorporate it into my project, do my users have to pay RedisLabs to support my project? If RedisLabs decides not to, is my project now illegal to support at all? What if I want to fork the software, does my fork inherit the clause and do the same problems apply? This doesn't sound anything like the "commons" to me. Pretty much all of the rights afforded to users of open source are rendered null and void, and the mention of an open source license in the licensing terms of such software is laughable.

Suppose you need to fix a problem with the source code or want a new feature. With the clause they've got there, you can't find a developer or company and pay them to fix the software for you. So you can't practically get changes made to the product. So, it might as well be closed source.

I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't.

Dgraph was interesting to me until they said they wanted to take a vig for me sharing knowledge and practical advice about the software (because that's what consulting, an activity expressly precluded in the dishonestly-named Commons Clause, is). That? That can go straight to hell.

Being a taker of open source (because you certainly "interact with open source") is your right but has absolutely nothing to do with those of us actually expecting those draping themselves in the banner of open source to practice open source principles and to run an open source project as an open source project. That exists between your ears and your ears alone.

> I've had my share of beefs with Sir_Cmpwn but this post is nonsense. You can't "largely" practice an open source model. Either you do or you don't.

Well, given that there are like 10 different criteria to meet it very obviously is not black and white.

You can view dgraph's source. You can modify and contribute to it. You can fork it, change it, etc. You just can't make it your own product that you sell.

It is open source in many, many ways, and probably the general, colloquial way. Whining endlessly because they don't want other people to sell it, and to maintain some semblance of ownership, is what's ridiculous.

You can't accept money to talk to somebody about the open-source project. The Commons Clause literally says this! Does the level of bullshit that implies not resonate? Even if there weren't a nigh-universally accepted definition of open source software that precludes it--and it does--in what universe does that suggest openness?

The code is open. You can modify the code. You can fork the code. You can do everything you'd normally do with the code.

You can not sell the code, or services that are directly based on the code.

Sounds pretty open and reasonable.

But we'll just have to disagree I think.

> In fact, as I was researching dgraph a bit more to see how you approached this issue, it also occurs to me that I can't find any discussion where existing Dgraph contributors were consulted on the matter of relicensing their work, which seems to me that your license change was not only distasteful and harmful to your project, but also illegal. Were all of the contributors consulted and their permission obtained to change the license?

Wait, did they not have a CLA?

No, I was wrong, and later found out that they've had a CLA for a while (you only find out about this when you submit a pull request, it's not mentioned in the contribution guide).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com