Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by licyeus on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @01:47PM
(#17820465)
This is humorously illustrated in Antirez's blog post on this matter[1]: "We at Redis Labs are sorry for the confusion generated by the Creative Common page".
They really should've run the name by someone familiar with the copyright landscape.
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by dragonwriter on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:25PM
(#17819862)
> One challenge is the name "Commons" is very misleading. It's not creating a commons
“Commons” isn't the thing the clause creates, it's the problem it aims to solve. Naming contract or license clauses after the problem they address is not uncommon.
Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source
by binomialxenon on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:56PM
(#17820084)
It would be terrible PR to call this the "Anti-
Commons Clause", but it would indeed be accurate.
One challenge is the name "Commons" is very misleading. It's not creating a commons, and it's also confusingly similar to the term "Creative Commons" which has been around for a really long time.
Also, the Commons website says that the Commons license is not OSS "at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD". Yet that is the official generally-accepted definition.