When did the definition of "open source" change? I always took "open source" to be an umbrella term that contained both Apache-type licenses and GPL/FSF-type licenses. I get that Commons Clause is more restrictive in ways than GPL, but GPL is definitely open source. So what makes Commons Clause not open source, if GPL is?
The definition of "open source" never changed. Apache and the GPL are both open source licenses. Appending the Commons Clause removes the zeroth freedom (FSF lingo) or the first clause (OSI lingo).
Which in today’s world where “we were planning to fund our lives offering professional services around a production deployment” is kindly railroaded by rock bottom AWS prices is a-ok...
That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3.
Withholding judgement on whether or not using a non-open license is the appropriate choice for Dgraph, the problem persists that their language is deliberately misleading. Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause, any software using any GPL-family license cannot include the Commons Clause. Finally, AGPL was explicitly designed years ago to address the case you raise, i.e. the server-side Tivo problem.
I think calling their language "deliberately misleading" is deliberately misleading when there is a representative from the project here telling you that they do not intend to mislead (thus even if it is misleading, it isn't deliberate). But I guess you just seem comfortable calling that person a liar. From reading this one thread, it seems like a bummer to me that you're assuming bad faith. But I had never heard of Dgraph until this thread, so maybe there is history that I'm naively ignoring.
What's your history with them that leads you to this conclusion? If you don't have any, and you're simply making assumptions based on their choice of licensing terms, what would your argument look like if you instead imagined them as people acting in good faith, trying to provide software to people on terms that allow them to both continue improving the software while also providing for their families?
I guess the reason I have trouble assuming bad faith with things like this is because it would be much easier for these people to just get high paying jobs at big software companies than to try to eke out a living making a useful source-provided (it would be so much easier to just use "open source" here, but that is verboten) product while arguing with people like you.
I think I've explained myself quite well in the thread. My personal, subjective conclusion is of dishonesty. I cannot give you an objective measure, the evidence is in this thread and you can draw your own conclusions. Being a generally good person who is trying to put food on the table for their family is not mutually exclusive with lying and resorting to questionably ethical means of doing so.
I've (unfortunately) read the whole thread. You've jumped to an uncharitable conclusion. A bunch of people have pointed this out. You can disagree while assuming good faith. It's too bad you aren't doing that here. I agree with you that it isn't a very good choice for licensing terms.
Yes, but bad faith exists, and the assumption of good faith is not always appropriate. I don't think that Dgraph is operating in good faith, and the evidence is enough that I am unable to suspend my disbelief. If I were Dgraph and my actions were so severely wrong that people were assuming bad faith, I would want to quickly correct that. But in fact, most of the concerns have gone un-answered.
> think calling their language "deliberately misleading" is deliberately misleading when there is a representative from the project here telling you that they do not intend to mislead (thus even if it is misleading, it isn't deliberate).
Well, yes, of you assume the honesty of the person being accused of being deliberately misleading, then that forces you to reject the claim that they are being deliberately misleading, but that is also a prime example of circular reasoning.
Didn't I speak directly to that in the part of my comment you didn't quote?
I guess I was being too cute in my comment, so I'll switch to frankness. As a total outsider to all this, your and others' assumption of bad faith and willingness to accuse people of outright lies here is very unconvincing and off-putting to me.
I think they're probably just trying to make a living off of software they put a lot of time into creating. It's reasonable to disagree about their approach, but you're uncharitably going further than that.
They claim that Dgraph started with the idea that every startup should be able to have the same level of technology as run by big giants. They started with VC funding in 2016 and their goal was always to make money.
That is clearly biggest lie. There is no harm in creating a company for profit but i would appreciate if they were honest.
The only reason Dgraph is open source is to get early adopters and free testers and contribution from community.
I'm so confused, what part are you saying is a lie? The whole post is focused around "building a long lasting company" through having a sustainable business model. What is dishonest about that? Aiming to provide good technology to startups and aiming to make money are not contradictory!
> Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause
It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
>All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
"works as ... open source" and "is ... not open source" are compatible statements. For instance, the handle of a screwdriver works as a hammer but is not a hammer.
I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the problems with AGPL. I think the motivations are more accurately that companies like Google refuse to use AGPL'd software and businesses based on open-source/source-open software want to do business with Google et al. Of course, you wrote this FAQ entry, so maybe I'm wrong.
> “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.”
Additionally, "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is not an Apache license. I have seen a number of people be confused by this. I hope Apache implements some guidance with regards to trademarks on this matter, mostly so I don't have to keep saying it.
It’s not really Apache though. That’s the problem I see with it. If you tell me you’re Apache licensed I shouldn’t be surprised when I open your license file.
Open source is not open for all. Is open only to the developers. The most and the important distinction.
Anyway we should avoid creating this confusion with this new crazy license, commons clause is malicioua in ita attempt to use a well understood term in a way that twista its meaning.
