11–20 of 496 posts
What if there's no button, but a user can run `apt-get install redis`? Is that in violation?
Redis is no longer free and open source software with this move. It is now proprietary software.
It might not be Open Source Software now, perhaps according to some zealots like RMS et al.
> According to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licensing cannot limit the scope of a license – it only applies conditions to exercising it. With this model, no one can stop you from doing whatever you want with the software, whether commercial or non-commercial, or (famously) good or evil. Therefore, the no-sale restriction imposed by Commons Clause means that any software under this new license is non-open source by definition. However, in practice, Commons Clause only adds a limitation concerning fair use, and we believe that both licensing approaches share the same core value of making software available for use by anyone.
Yikes, the wording around consulting seems especially worrisome - are they effectively prohibiting third parties from providing redis technical support? This move will likely kill the project as it is today.
This is limitation around selling software/product not consulting, per bottom of post: "...if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product. However, if what you sell is basically the functionality of the module packaged as a cloud service or on-prem software, Commons Clause does not allow it."
The other modules for Redis developed by RedisLabs [1] are under the new Commons Clause license.
The big 3 cloud providers provide Redis as a cache service and don't use these modules anyway, so their offerings will remain unaffected.
So if you're a cloud provider that provides generic cloud VMs, with a button to "Install Redis onto VM", is that allowed? What if it's one of hundreds of similar buttons to install various software onto the VM? What if there's no button, but a user can run `apt-get install redis`? Is that in violation?
This is the license below. I'm pretty sure this is going to be vague enough to cause problems with a ton of legal departments. They want to be the only ones hosting it and the the only ones you call in to help with it. I get where the Redis folks are coming from, but this is basically a nail in the product and guarantees a fork if they don't turn back. === 8 The Software is provided to you by the Licensor under the L…
You are causing confusion, and if you are trying to maintain some kind of positive vibes from the dev community by keeping an open license underneath the proprietary wrapper, I don't think that's going to work.
So if you're a cloud provider that provides generic cloud VMs, with a button to "Install Redis onto VM", is that allowed? What if it's one of hundreds of similar buttons to install various software onto the VM? What if there's no button, but a user can run `apt-get install redis`? Is that in violation?
To be fair, Redis itself still remains BSD licensed. The other modules for Redis developed by RedisLabs [1] are under the new Commons Clause license. The big 3 cloud providers provide Redis as a cache service and don't use these modules anyway, so their offerings will remain unaffected. [1] https://redislabs.com/community/oss-projects/
From reading the post, I got the impression they were specifically trying to stop the big cloud providers...
So if you're a cloud provider that provides generic cloud VMs, with a button to "Install Redis onto VM", is that allowed? What if it's one of hundreds of similar buttons to install various software onto the VM? What if there's no button, but a user can run `apt-get install redis`? Is that in violation?
That is allowed and fine. What you can't do is, if you are Amazon, release "AWS Sdejt" which is simply a managed wrapper around Redis.