Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redis will remain BSD licensed

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 206 posts

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#121

Post by pritambaral »

ecnahc515 wrote: post #109
pritambaral wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL doesn't require releasing internal changes unless the changed code is served (like in SaaS) externally. Organizations are free to internally modify, run, and distribute changes to AGPL code as long as the modified code is made available on the internal network.

Im generally curious, what's the definition of "externally"? It's a bit more vague compared to "operating as a service", since you may expose your service externally, but only allow access to internal users.

The license itself doesn't treat "externally" different from "internally". Its terms are simple: any one who uses it should have a way to get the source.

If you let someone "external" to the company use the software over a network, then, during their use, they should have a way to get the source. If you don't let any one "external" connect to the service, then there's no need for you to provide them a way to get the source.

-----

For example, if there were a software like redis, but one that were licensed under the GNU AGPLv3 — say 'gredis' — and you let someone connect to it — say, using 'gredis-cli' — then you must make the source available to them. But if you run this 'gredis' software in your stack and make use of it in your stack but don't let anyone except your ops team connect to the running 'gredis' instances, then you need make your source available only to your ops team.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#122

Post by prepend »

keepper wrote: post #95

What 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" Which is just such a weird statement. So instead of supporting the OSS creators and main contributors, who want a way to monetize their "value add" modules, while still giving the core software freely; you rather support a huge corporation that gives almost zero back to OSS ( AWS…

“...gives almost zero back to OSS...” This is not true as Amazon not only releases it’s own projects but contributes really broadly [0].

I can’t speak for others, but I understand the decision to choose ElastiCache over CC software as I understand Amazon’s model a lot better than projects that change their license.

So if I’m going to hinge on something non-OSS, I prefer the logical points where a utility that sells cloud compute so doesn’t care about software than for software companies that change their license, really substantially.

My org allows AGPL as we can easily comply. But we can’t comply with CC. This shift is a big deal and kind of hoses me.

You mention Microsoft in the 90s. They shared source code all the time, but you couldn’t use it and there was zero community. So if you want that, CC is way more likely to get us there as community contributions will dry up. I’d rather depend on companies that are explicit (ie, “this is open source, this is not”).

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/opensource/

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#123

Post by eindiran »

lazyloop wrote: post #102
detaro wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BTW, you should probably change https://redislabs.com/community/oss-projects/ to match the the non-Open-Source-licenses most things have there. (yes, they are listed, but the page pretends everything on it is Open Source)

You're mixing up Open Source and Free Software, those two are not the same.

There is a difference between Open Source and merely making the source code available. See the definition here: https://opensource.org/osd

In particular, this comes into conflict with 1, Free Redistribution.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#124

Post by yeahforsureman »

Yiftach wrote: post #116
ccleve wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yiftach (and Antirez), Please talk more about AGPL. MongoDB has a similar problem, and they solved it by making their product dual-licensed, AGPL + commercial. They then clarified the AGPL to say that in their opinion, it did in fact prevent cloud providers from building managed services around the modules. https://www.mongodb.com/community/licensing/faq The AGPL is lengthy and a bit convoluted, so it's possible they…

Well - I can only say that what MongoDB has is not complete. There are still many holes, and we prefer to avoid them. And of course this doesn't solve the other issue, where developers cannot use AGPL in large enterprises.

The actual wording of the Commons Clause is very general and ambiguous. I'd be surprised if this didn't continue to cause issues within large enterprises.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#125

Post by Spivak »

ramshorns wrote: post #107
lazyloop wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up Open Source and Free Software, those two are not the same.

They have different ideologies behind them, but they refer to almost exactly the same class of software. A license that doesn't allow commercial use is proprietary and closed source.

Forbidding commercial use doesn't make something closed source but it does make it proprietary. The compliment of Open Source isn't closed source.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#126

Post by papaf »

esterly wrote: post #104

Best to check the source, license unchanged: https://github.com/antirez/redis/blob/unstable/COPYING Thank you Salvatore for Redis, it has benefited so many projects.

This should be the top rated comment.

I wish people would put the pitchforks away, and acknowledge the challenges of funding a successful Open Source project.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#127

Post by theyinwhy »

ramshorns wrote: post #107
lazyloop wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mixing up Open Source and Free Software, those two are not the same.

They have different ideologies behind them, but they refer to almost exactly the same class of software. A license that doesn't allow commercial use is proprietary and closed source.

Open Source software can be proprietary, see all the github repos without license information.

What you are referring to is "Free Software", as defined by Stallman.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#128

Post by whoisjuan »

keepper wrote: post #95

What 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" Which is just such a weird statement. So instead of supporting the OSS creators and main contributors, who want a way to monetize their "value add" modules, while still giving the core software freely; you rather support a huge corporation that gives almost zero back to OSS ( AWS…

I don't think that's the problem. Real Open Source (at least for me) means that you can trust that's there's an unbiased commitment to make solutions widely available and implementable. It also means that you can switch between managed providers and/or between OS implementations and expect to have a similar experience.

There are so many ways to make money out of open source that are totally compatible with this approach. I don't see how keeping an iron grip on open source software (just because you're afraid that other people would make money out of it or whatever) would help you at all to monetize your own value-adds.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#129

Post by nailer »

dang wrote: post #108
nailer wrote: post #76

Earlier 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…

There's no need to get personal about it, even when you disagree about licensing. Please don't.

The "what's the clause?" section starts with a plug for the clause's creator - even before answering the question, which seems a bit unnecessary, but I'll edit the post and remove the personal reference. Sorry Dan.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#130

Post by dahdum »

keepper wrote: post #95

What 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" Which is just such a weird statement. So instead of supporting the OSS creators and main contributors, who want a way to monetize their "value add" modules, while still giving the core software freely; you rather support a huge corporation that gives almost zero back to OSS ( AWS…

One reason from a corporate standpoint is dependency. You can assume AWS will continue to host the core Redis indefinitely, but if you use Redis Labs and your developers begin to use any of the the new proprietary modules, you are locked into the RL platform only. No other platform will be able to use those modules, the only option being rolling your own.

If RL quadruples their pricing, you'll just have to bear it. Definitely makes it more risky than it was.

Post reply on HN