
“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling open source as products - gregwebs
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/07/commons-clause-stops-open-source-abuse/
======
danieldk
_When open source became popular, it was designed for practitioners to
experiment with and build on, while contributing back to the community. [...]
open-source software was never intended for cloud infrastructure companies to
take and sell._

Uhm no. If you are using the BSD license or the Apache license, you are
explicitly saying: you can use this software as you want, just give me credit,
and don't sue me if it does not work. Many companies have used the BSD TCP/IP
stack and included it in proprietary software, including the BSD projects.
This is something that the non-copyleft open source licenses explicitly permit
and has been encouraged by a lot of projects. Using open source software in
the cloud is a modern variant of it.

When it comes to copyleft licensing, the goal is that the user of a program or
service (in the case of AGPL) can obtain the source code of a program and
redistribute it under the same terms.

The goal of open source was never to protect (VC-backed) companies that want
to pretent to do open source, but then object when other people earn money
with their software.

What you are looking for is a non-open source license, optionally with the
possibility to make the source available. That's fine. But please stop
hijacking the history of open source and diluting the reputation of open
source licenses by calling it Apache 2 License + Commons Clause.

Commons Clause is not open source and had nothing to do with it.

 _Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the
community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the
word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making
these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.)_

What does this poison even do on Hacker News?

~~~
gregwebs
I think its useful to have a name of "Apache 2 License + Commons Clause"
because 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a
cloud service.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud
> service.

No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache
2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other
license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than
Apache 2.0.

~~~
gregwebs
Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a
NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0
without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a
non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive.

A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for
non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?

~~~
lozenge
It's incompatible with all open source licences.

------
striking
> Some rabid open-source wonks accused Redis Labs of trying to trick the
> community into thinking that modules were open source, because they used the
> word “Apache.” (They were reported to be foaming at the mouth while making
> these accusations, but in fairness it could have been just drool.)

What an incredibly uncivil article. How can one say this when, in basically
every HN thread on this subject, it had to be explained to at least one person
that this is not an Apache license?

~~~
gregwebs
They have done a poor job communicating this license to the community, and
this continues the tradition :(

I would like to see the discussion move from the messenger to the idea (now
that hopefully everyone actually understand it!). This is a very important
topic to figure out.

~~~
danieldk
_This is a very important topic to figure out._

IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the
Apache 2 License to require cloud users to put some unflattering notice in
their documentation:

 _If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then
any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the
attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices
that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of
the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the
Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along
with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative
Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear._

Offer the option to purchase a license to the software without the requirement
to display the notice.

~~~
gregwebs
Cloud providers aren't actually distributing open source software though
unless it is AGPL. So I think this is a good idea, but you also need a better
AGPL license too.

~~~
danieldk
I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something
like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But
I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open
source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back
(well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice
somewhere visibly ;)).

But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems
to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of
open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having
an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.

~~~
gregwebs
Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point
of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers"
has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming
should be achievable without using licenses.

But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want
contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers
to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy
everyone by prepending Apache).

------
dessant
The author of the article has invested in Redis Labs.

[https://techcrunch.com/author/salil-
deshpande/](https://techcrunch.com/author/salil-deshpande/)

~~~
dragonwriter
The author of the article (overtly, as described in the article) organized the
Commons Clause effort and the dishonest propaganda of selling it as a rider
attached to an open source license by open source firms rather than a
proprietary license by firms abandoning open source.

------
teilo
The Commons Clause is a cancer to open source. It is as much as saying: You
can use our software however you like, unless you charge someone to host and
maintain an environment that runs our software.

In other words, it stifles one of the most powerful tools for increasing the
market penetration of open source.

~~~
duskwuff
In other other words, it isn't free software at all. It's commercial software
with source code access and a limited right to free use.

~~~
teilo
EDIT: You were agreeing with me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't
delete my goofups, so I'll let the below remain and take the karma hit.

\---

Nonsense. Open Source does not mean, and has never meant, that you get
everything for free.

For example, a company wishing to use Postgres in some project has a choice:
Setup and manage it themselves, or pay someone to do it for them. That someone
may be Amazon in the form of an RDS instance. Or maybe they hire me to setup
and manage a traditional VM for them on Amazon's infrastructure. Or maybe they
host it themselves, but contract with me to do all of the setup and
maintenance so they don't have to. (Please note that despite having the skills
for this, I don't do this for anyone but my own company.)

By your logic, any of those options turns Postgres into commercial software
that ceases to be free.

By your logic, you are literally telling anyone who wishes to use Postgres:
That's great. Just don't you dare to pay someone to do this for you.

How about comparing the cost difference for paying for SQL Server RDS vs.
Postgres RDS. For an m4.large instance, the former is $0.977/hr. and the
latter is $0.189/hr. Why do you suppose that is?

~~~
detaro
I feel like duskwuff was violently agreeing with you about the Commons Clause,
not arguing against you.

------
gregwebs
I would really like to see some revised approaches to the AGPL (actually open
source) that doesn't freak everyone out. Some of the purpose of their commons
clause is just because big company lawyers ban AGPL software in large part due
to their interpretation of the license which may not even be correct.

------
shshhdhs
The author downplays the critical feedback, and raves about the small pieces
of positive feedback he got. The feedback on previous HN posts was largely
negative though

------
Avamander
In my opinion if a company makes software they want to get contributions back
there are licenses such as GPL and AGPL, the commons clause just infringes on
user freedoms. Thus I think the title is a bit too absolute and thus should be
changed to something else.

~~~
dang
We've changed the title above to reflect more specifically what the article
says. If someone can suggest a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title,
we can change it again.

------
anfilt
While, I understand the sentiment of not liking companies basically reselling
open source software. It does restrict the rights of users on what they can
do.

However, I have also never consider GPL entirely open source it restricts
someones right to not publish changes they make. It's also definitely a reason
some people choose not to use the GPL.

If we want to get philosophical the only true open source license is release
code to the public domain. No restrictions/requirements at all.

However, there is one big issue with this "Commons Clause". This section here
"whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the
Software". Your not allowed to sell services even if you modify it to add some
unique features. If those depend substantially on the software. If it just
said "entirely" instead also including "substantially". The problem is the
word "substantially" is quite vague, and if changes or additions you make
can't run without their software which is pretty much any software
modifications/modules, scripts ect... that have software licensed under this
as a dependency.

Let's say someone licensed an operating system under this license. You develop
an application which uses the OS's system calls. Your application does
something useful, so you wish to sell it as a service, but because your
application can't run without calling those system calls. It may be legally
counted as "substantially" deriving value from the licensed software, and you
can't sell your own work.

While, I understand some licenses are a compromise of the only license that
ensures all freedoms which is public domain. These compromises either tend to
try help open source or just ensure that software is free for everyone using
it. Since something in public domain can be resold, and the secondary users of
that may never know the source code exists. Some just prevent someone else
from claiming that they made the software.

However, as I mentioned at the start, I understand why some people do not like
the idea of company just taking an open source project and selling it.
However, this license goes way too far. It places what I call unreasonable
restrictions on the users. It's in need of a major rework.

~~~
mr_toad
> No restrictions/requirements at all.

It’s been tried. Unix vendors would take publically available code (MIT’s X
Windows), close it off, and prevent system administrators from touching it, or
only release it under NDA.

Freedom for the vendors, not for the users.

~~~
anfilt
I did say the following above: "Since something in public domain can be
resold, and the secondary users of that may never know the source code
exists."

I am quite aware of that issue. All I was saying any license other than public
domain puts some sort restriction/requirement on users. Vendors are users too,
and ideally they would not try close off open source code. So a good OSS
license should unobtrusive, and reasonable to users who are not trying engage
in shenanigans. These are obviously restrictions since the license tries to
prevent underhanded behavior, but I woulds say a reasonable compromises since
we don't live in a perfect world where everyone is honest.

Despite it's confusing name I would say this "commons license" was attempt to
stop what they see has underhanded behavior. However, as I said before it's a
comprise too large since really does have the potential limit a lot of
freedoms. I would say it's anything but unobtrusive.

However, the OP author of the article also appears dismissive or closed to any
criticism.

------
benologist
Open source abuse would be complaining someone made money from open source
work. DRM is the solution for people who wish to arbitrarily restrict how
others use IP.

------
Hnrobert42
This is the first time I have seen this topic. The points seem reasonable
enough to me.

~~~
dang
If you want to get caught up, the previous large discussions are:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818407](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818407)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17814386](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17814386)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818647](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17818647)

------
jlawer
From the article > First, AGPL makes it inconvenient but does not prevent
cloud infrastructure providers from engaging in the abusive behavior described
above. It simply says that they must release any modifications they make while
engaging in such behavior.

Thats the point of Open Source... You can compete right back with all their
changes, and your likely to be the most knowledgable about the product.

------
bromuro
I can’t read articles from TC - when I scroll, the content disappears and I
see like an another article or page. i’m on iOS 12. What is it?

