5 ms·

This is Jay, the CEO of Confluent. No, actually quite the opposite. We took pains to ensure that the license was written so that software products like Landoop

This is Jay, the CEO of Confluent. No, actually quite the opposite. We took pains to ensure that the license was written so that software products like Landoop were free to embed our open source and compete with us in that way. This FAQ covers the competition in more detail: https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq

jamesblonde 8y ago
I am no expert on this, but based on Bryan's analysis, if Landoop were to release a SAAS offering of their product, they would be in breach of the license. As Landoop are pushing Kafka on Kubernetes, I assume that is their strategy - to have a SAAS offering at some stage (we are all going to the cloud, i thought?).
- jamesblonde 8y ago
  That's why you use the word "product", Jay. Yes? That's weasel -speak, IMO.
shabbyrobe 8y ago
> Embed our open source I thought the FAQ said you wouldn't refer to it as such: > Because of this, we will not refer to the Confluent Community License or any code released under it as open source.
- nl 8y ago
  I believe the trademarked term is “Open Source” (with capitals) and they are avoiding that. IMO it’s a deliberately deceptive technique to try to confuse the market and dilute open source.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    The quoted passage from the FAQ says "open source" in lowercase.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    > dilute open source. I think you mean "dilute Open Source" with capitals :P More seriously: most terms dilute over time, and it takes a lot of effort to prevent that. I wouldn't assume every instance is malicious
  - plopz 8y ago
    There is no trademark on "Open Source", whats trademarked is "OSI Certified".
phoe-krk 8y ago
> were free to embed our open source Source available. Your license is not open source as understood by OSI or free software as understood by FSF.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jamesblonde 8y ago

I am no expert on this, but based on Bryan's analysis, if Landoop were to release a SAAS offering of their product, they would be in breach of the license. As Landoop are pushing Kafka on Kubernetes, I assume that is their strategy - to have a SAAS offering at some stage (we are all going to the cloud, i thought?).

jamesblonde 8y ago
That's why you use the word "product", Jay. Yes? That's weasel -speak, IMO.

shabbyrobe 8y ago

> Embed our open source I thought the FAQ said you wouldn't refer to it as such: > Because of this, we will not refer to the Confluent Community License or any code released under it as open source.

nl 8y ago
I believe the trademarked term is “Open Source” (with capitals) and they are avoiding that. IMO it’s a deliberately deceptive technique to try to confuse the market and dilute open source.
- slavik81 8y ago
  The quoted passage from the FAQ says "open source" in lowercase.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  > dilute open source. I think you mean "dilute Open Source" with capitals :P More seriously: most terms dilute over time, and it takes a lot of effort to prevent that. I wouldn't assume every instance is malicious
- plopz 8y ago
  There is no trademark on "Open Source", whats trademarked is "OSI Certified".

phoe-krk 8y ago

> were free to embed our open source Source available. Your license is not open source as understood by OSI or free software as understood by FSF.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]