News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Commons Clause. Parent comment

Re:Commons Clause by CharlesW on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @10:14PM (#17815723)
> As an open source lawyer, this is definitely not an open source license in any meaningful sense…

TFA plainly says that it isn't, "at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD."

> I'm sure you can make up another word other than "proprietary" to call it…

TFA also answers this:

> "Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to 'source-available'."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Commons Clause by DannyBee on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:23PM (#17816034)
I was clearly replying to the claim made that this doesn't make redis proprietary. As I said, they just made up a new word for their version of proprietary.

Also, the FAQ was added after I posted. Look at GitHub commits :)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Commons Clause by slavak on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:28AM (#17816305)
But this _doesn't_ make Redis proprietary, because Redis is and will always remain BSD-licensed, THAT is what the claim you're referring to is talking about.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Commons Clause by LukeShu on Tuesday August 21, 2018 @11:31PM (#17816077)
I understood the claim as saying that redis itself isn't using the commons clause, and that it's only some enterprise redis modules that are adding the clause to their license.
[ Parent | on HN ]