Small nitpick: the "most permissive license ever" is the FPL/0BSD: https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0
Redis will remain BSD licensed
91–100 of 206 posts
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because the use of AGPL is against their company’s policy. Have you confirmed with these same people that the new license is allowed by their company policies?
Believe it or not - the answer is 'yes'
I don't think this is strange at all btw, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17819769
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#93Hi, this is Yiftach, CTO and Co-founder of Redis Labs. First, let me assure you that Redis remains and always will remain, open source, BSD license. For avoiding any doubt - commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) is applied only to add-ons (modules), on top of Redis (e.g. RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, Rebloom) that were developed by Redis Labs . We initially released these modules under AGPL li…
>from AGPL to a more permissive license, because the use of AGPL is against their company’s policy.
But to effect, it is the same. The point of them restricting use of AGPL is them not wanting to publish the code while making money of it. To the effect, they still can't make money of it.
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
From that page: > The Commons Clause is a license condition drafted by Heather Meeker that applies a minimal-form commercial restriction on top of an existing open source license Making it proprietary and failing the Open Source Definition. You cannot have Commons Clause 'on top' of an existing Open Source license. This is impossible. You can only replace the existing Open Source license with Commons Clause. The page…
Yes, and right below it acknowledges that it is not Open Source and doesn't try to be: > It this “Open Source”? > No, at least not by the official definition set forth by the OSD. Applying the Clause to an open source project will transition the project to “source-available”.
> Is this Open Source? No. The source is available for inspection and restricted use but, because of these restrictions, its licence is not Open Source per the Open Source Definition.
That's all that needs to be said. Your page reads as though the author is hiding something or that the author is ashamed of the answer. Just come out and say it.
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#95What I find interesting is all of the comments saying
"Well, I was going to use RedisLabs.. but because of this, i'll use AWS/elasticache"
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the explanation. I see no problem with this approach in principle and wish your business the best of luck. However, you have made a big mistake with how the "Commons Clause" confuses Open Source under the OSD with "source available". You were not well served by those who advised you to do so.
The Commons Clause clearly acknowledges this in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/
The FAQ is not a sufficient corrective for all the deceptive top-level messaging around "Commons Clause". (Name, abbreviation, suggested usage all inappropriately invoking open source).
Worse, none of the deceptiveness was necessary to implement the plan described by the Redis Labs Co-Founder above, which is completely [edit: potentially] compatible with Open Source. Antagonizing the wider Open Source community was pointless.
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for the explanation. I see no problem with this approach in principle and wish your business the best of luck. However, you have made a big mistake with how the "Commons Clause" confuses Open Source under the OSD with "source available". You were not well served by those who advised you to do so.
The Commons Clause clearly acknowledges this in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/
That FAQ was quickly added after the yelling started. It's the weaseling and obfuscating that in the end look a lot worse than the perfectly sensible desire to make more money from your products. They could have achieved that without the bizarre 'piss down your back and tell you it's raining' approach.
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was clear to me from a careful reading that the page did not refer to Redis, but it also seemed deliberately designed to suggest that it did. It seemed pretty scummy. And the name itself of "Commons Clause" is practically a tiny version of fake news, since it tries to give an "open source" feeling to what is essentially a proprietary license. As a practical/PR matter, I think Redis Labs have likely shot themselves…
I'll pile on here as well, we were thinking about shifting from elasticache to RL, but this has made that decision super easy.
Elasticache is a totally closed source implementation that does not contribute back to the community. How did this situation change your decision?
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#99If you want to ship enterprise modules under a source-is-publicly-available-but-not-open-source license, a sort of limited-commercial-use-source-available-freeware license, I think that is definitely better in some ways than keeping them fully closed source, so should be applauded.
But, I think this "Commons Clause" condition was a poor choice of a way of achieving that end. Having some condition which is added to an existing open source license, and takes away some of the rights that license grants, is horribly confusing. If you aren't granting the full set of rights associated with open source license X, then open source license X should not even be mentioned.
If you had just picked some existing license which had the set of permissions you wanted, or even created a new one, I don't think anywhere near as many people would be complaining. "Commons Clause" is a horrible idea and should be retired.
Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed
#100Hi, this is Yiftach, CTO and Co-founder of Redis Labs. First, let me assure you that Redis remains and always will remain, open source, BSD license. For avoiding any doubt - commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) is applied only to add-ons (modules), on top of Redis (e.g. RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, Rebloom) that were developed by Redis Labs . We initially released these modules under AGPL li…
In order to maintain a standard framework we decided to piggyback the restriction (on creating managed services by cloud providers) on any existing OSS license.
And that was a bad decision and it needs to be reverted. What you're doing is dishonest, point blank.
If you don't want to write a new license from scratch, take one of the ones off this list, and fork it and make a "Redis Non-Commercial License" or whatever you want to call it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software#Rest...