Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by TimothyBJacobs on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @11:02AM
(#17819158)
Don't we have the AGPL for this purpose to require them to contribute back their proprietary changes. As others have pointed out, if this was only about the modifications they would have used AGPL. Instead, and giving the clauses about consulting, it seems more like they are concerned about money than the health of the ecosystem.
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:15PM
(#17819781)
> Don't we have the AGPL for this purpose to require them to contribute back their proprietary changes.
That doesn't help upstream monetize; this is entirely about money, not reciprocal contributions of code.
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by TimothyBJacobs on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @01:24PM
(#17820279)
That was the point I was trying to make. Guess I didn't word it well :)
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by gregmac on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @11:24AM
(#17819317)
The Redis Labs modules were AGPL, they moved from that to Apache + Common Clause[1].
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by tree_of_item on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @03:40PM
(#17821411)
Money is a part of the health of the ecosystem.
Cloud providers do redistribute. It runs on their servers. They do not have to honor copyright restrictions. They can make proprietary modifications and keep them, and they do. They might be honoring the letter of the license, but certainly not the spirit of it.