Redis modules and the Commons Clause [LWN.net]

Redis modules and the Commons Clause

Posted Aug 23, 2018 3:37 UTC (Thu) by sml (subscriber, #75391)
Parent article: Redis modules and the Commons Clause

I think the worst part of this is the deliberate obfuscation caused by the naming that Commons Clause encourages.

Plenty of companies have relicensed their previous Free Software product with a proprietary license. Anyone who signed the CLA would know that they are signing the rights to their code over to Redis Labs. And Redis Labs wanting to make money from their product is not a bad thing.

However Apache 2.0 is a well known and well regarded Free Software license. "Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause" is a dirty trick to take advantage of the good reputation of Apache 2.0. If Redis Labs renamed their license to something more honest like "Redis Labs Proprietary License" it would fix all the problems I have with this.

And FOSSA should be ashamed for promoting such weasel wording.

to post comments

Misleading/confusing text is the real problem

Posted Aug 23, 2018 18:44 UTC (Thu) by david.a.wheeler (subscriber, #72896) [Link]

I agree that the misleading/confusing text is in many ways the real problem. There are millions of proprietary licenses, and many organizations use "open core" business models. But calling it "Commons" makes it sound like this is from the Creative Commons Corporation, and the way they refer to Apache makes it sound like this is from the Apache Foundation. In addition, a lot of discussion about OSS refers to "the commons" - yet this "Commons" license isn't OSS. If they'd make things clear, including renaming things to make things clear, it would be <i>much</i> better.