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

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#131

Post by rmc »

theyinwhy wrote: post #127
ramshorns wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

According to most of people who invented the term "open source", the OSI and their open source definition, propritary software, even if you can see the source, is not "open source".

Nearly everyone uses the term "open source" this way, and to use it otherwise is grossly misleading.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#132

Post by JaimeThompson »

Yiftach wrote: post #55

Hi, 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…

"commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) "

That is subject to change so without a specific version number / date it is effectively useless as a guide.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#133

Post by rmc »

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.

I don't know about GNU, but OpenStreetMap has a licence where bits kick in if it's used externally, and it defines it as:

"“Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant)."

So if you can tell someone to do something, they are internal. If you can't, then that's public.

https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#134

Post by cyphar »

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.

Here is the actual portion of the GNU AGPLv3 that is relevant:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.

There are a few key things to note (I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of the GPL family of licenses is that they be written so that developers can also understand them):

* It only applies to people who have modified their version of the software, so if you just run code provided to you by someone else you don't need to give network users the source code.

* It uses the term "users" which would imply that if you state that someone external to your company is not permitted to use the service, they would not be considered a user (and thus you don't need to give them a copy of the source).

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#135

Post by microtonal »

Yiftach wrote: post #55

Hi, 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…

We initially released these modules under AGPL license but found two major drawbacks (a) AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules,

Aren't there good solutions within open source licenses? I agree that the AGPL does not solve the stated issue. However, the Apache License version 2.0 has the following text:

If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. [...]

I typically use the Apache License version 2 and include a NOTICE file with something like

This software contains portions of XYZ, which was developed by Daniël de Kok.

I do get contacted every once in a while by a company that wants to use my software, but does not want to include this notice in their software/documentation and offer to pay to remove the notice. You could even make it a bit nefarious like:

This software uses XYZ, but your software/service vendor is a cheapskate that leaches off XYZ and kills puppies by not contributing back to XYZ.

And offer the option to obtain a (proprietary) license that allows use with removal of the notice. IANAL, and I don't know if the Apache License's NOTICE wording also covers use in cloud services (it seems so). If not, it would be an easy extension. And the outcome is much better than the abomination that Commons Clause is: the software stays open source and it puts pressure on downstream users to contribute back.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#136

Post by marshray »

adrianmonk wrote: post #106
stingraycharles wrote: post #2

I’m happy to hear that Redis will remain BSD, but it’s a bit weird to play the “fake news” card. Can you really blame people for interpreting this the wrong way? Especially when the original announcement was specifically targeting cloud providers, who, afaik, are just running vanilla redis. If there is anything that we can learn from this, is that a little bit of forethought when putting these announcements out there…

I agree with your complaint but I wouldn't use the terminology "fake news". To me, that's more of a specific term that refers to media bias as a propaganda tool. Whereas this is more of a rumor mill going wild as rumor mills naturally tend to do. But yes, while hoards of people behave in a bit of a crazy manner, it is a known thing, and if you're responsible for public communication, you should understand those quirk…

To be precise, the term 'fake news' is an accusation against the media, used as a propaganda tactic, and most often false.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#137

Post by scrollaway »

dilap wrote: post #113
fizzybeetle wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elasticache is a totally closed source implementation that does not contribute back to the community. How did this situation change your decision?

what would they contribute back? elasticache is just vanilla redis. aws is selling you compute time and ram.

> elasticache is just vanilla redis

Only at the interface level. Elasticache is a heavily forked Redis. There's a reason it's several versions behind.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#138

Post by scrollaway »

quotemstr wrote: post #114

I've seen saying for years and years that we're going to see a resurgence of proprietary software. Free software was one of those ideas that spread so successfully that people temporarily forgot that life could be otherwise, which means they stopped caring about the idea, which in turn led to a complacency that, at first, shifted software licensing to a BSD-style permissive model, and now, is starting to allow 1990s…

Have you read the Commons Clause license? Do you understand it well enough to back up those absurd claims you're making?

People see "oh it's not OSI-approved" and just de-facto assume it's the end of the world.

Redis is an amazing piece of open source, BSD software and you're taking a huge dump on it and its author for not complying to your wishes. Friend, have you done for open source even 1/10th of what Antirez and the Redis project have?

Honestly, this whole thread. I remember instances of people finding out about major figures in open source burning out, turning to drugs or even killing themselves and being all like "oh, this was so preventable".

Prevent now. Stop behaving like this towards people.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#139

Post by cercatrova »

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.

Couldn't you sell them the commercially licensed version then, if you had the AGPL + commercial dual license?

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#140

Post by dilap »

scrollaway wrote: post #137
dilap wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what would they contribute back? elasticache is just vanilla redis. aws is selling you compute time and ram.

> elasticache is just vanilla redis Only at the interface level. Elasticache is a heavily forked Redis. There's a reason it's several versions behind.

that makes sense. i guess i had just assumed it was laziness. :-)

out of curiosity, do you have any idea what their mods might be?

Post reply on HN