Commons Clause

Redis core plans to remain BSD. I honestly think this whole thread is missing this and it's incredibly crucial.

From the article:

> The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.” These modules can be freely used in any application, but selling a product whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from their functionality is prohibited.

It's a nail in the coffin for maybe a few niche modules?

Dont think this is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. Multiple database companies with excellent products (Rethinkdb et al) have faced significant challenges commercializing software that is open source. We need credible monetization strategies for building infrastructure level open source software. I do not fully agree with the Commons clause implementation, but I understand the need for it to exist and welcome efforts in this area.

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.

No, it just requires the service provider to also provide source code. The issue here is that RedisLabs wants to ensure that no service providers can use their modules and receive money. The AGPL specifically allows people to run the software for any purpose and also specifically disallows tacking on other clauses. (As does the GPL -- the only difference with the AGPL is that providing it over a network is considered "distribution" for the purposes of license compliance).

> Help! Companies are exploiting my open source software for profit!

Uh, you told them they could.

> Yeah, but they're doing it without contributing back! They're just taking what I wrote and building it into a proprietary product!

You told them they could.

> But how is it fair that they can make so much money off my code and I never see a cent?

You. Told. Them. They. Could.

Time and again I see the same sense of helpless outrage from OSS devs. You owe it to yourself to understand the consequences of the license you choose, now and in the future. All the proselytising about permissive vs reciprocal licenses has only masked the important personal choices involved. Choices that you need to make honestly and carefully, or end up burned by your own expectations.

Are you willing to release your code, both in the sense of putting it out into the world and emancipating it from your ownership? Do you accept that your code could be renamed, rebranded, repackaged, rented, traded or sold? Would you be happy if your code made someone else rich, famous or successful while you saw no benefit at all? If so, your code is a gift given unconditionally, and you should choose a permissive license.

If not, the answer isn't to release it under an MIT license and then complain about it, but to pick a license that matches your intent. The GPL exists for a reason. The MPL exists for a reason. Not because the people who use reciprocal licenses hate freedom, but because their idea of freedom is based on sharing rather than giving. A gift expects nothing in return. Sharing expects that you share as well.

Any choice is a fine choice as long as it aligns with your goals. What I don't get is trying to have both and then being upset when you're rebuffed by reality. Picking a permissive license is being the chill surfer dude who lives in a van and just, like, takes life as it comes, man. Lots of people like the idea of that dude, very few people want to actually be that dude. Don't pick the BSD license because of its cool I-don't-care image. Pick it because you actually don't care, or be forced to admit publicly and embarrassingly later that you actually did all along and it was all a show.

And for the love of god, don't pick a permissive license, slap a preface on top that says "but not really tho", and act like you've found some amazing lifehack. You're just lying to yourself and everyone else; wearing open source's uniform without making open source's sacrifices.

To be clear, this license does not (and, according to the post, never will) apply to regular Redis deployments, so from that angle at least you're clear. Currently it only applies to certain Redis modules, which need to be deployed separately anyway.

I'm also a bit unclear on whether this would prevent you from selling consulting services for products licensed under this clause that the paying customer deployed themselves or were deployed by someone other than you.

Full disclosure: Am a Redis Labs employee, although not here in any official capacity.