[mslipper]

I'm genuinely confused why there is so much backlash against the Commons Clause. Ignoring for a second the confusion around RedisLabs and its relationship with Redis core, the Commons Clause is setting out to solve the following problem with open source:

  - A person or company creates an open-source library, at great cost of time and effort.
  - A big company adds that library to their cloud offerings, at arguably far lesser cost, and monetizes it.
  - The library author receives no compensation.

This article seems to argue against the Commons Clause because it's not 'true open source,' but this seems like a purely ideological argument that sidesteps the true problem that CC is trying to solve: open source creators not getting a cut of the profit they are generating for big companies. Am I missing something here?

[int_19h]

Affero GPL is the license that purports to solve this problem. It's been around for a while, and it's getting some use, but I wouldn't call it popular.