151–160 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I never bothered to really look into it -- I suspect it's semi-public information. If I had to guess, lots of internal changes to make Redis behave better in AWS's architecture to do with containerization, EC2, S3/EBS, maintenance automation related stuff, instrumentation, etc. Oh actually definitely some stuff related to their redis clustering system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It doesn't. Anyone is able to redistribute these Redis Modules under the same license.
Yiftech commented that the reason for making the switch was that "AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules". The entire reason for making the switch to licensing the modules under the new license is that the Free Redistribution aspect of AGPL and other open source licenses allows cloud providers to use the software in a way that Redis labs doesn't like.
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.
developers who cannot use AGPL in large enterprises are probably forbidden to use non-open-source software distributed under a shared-source license that allows no commercial use.
A non-charitable reading would be "we want mindshare and adoption from developers in large enterprises who will then buy or software rather than admit that they were unable to understand our terms and assumed our software was liberal open source".
To make things more concrete - while GPL allows unrestricted internal use, the horror scenario would be the contractor who is brought in to work on software including GPLd code and who may have right to receiving the source of everything (as a "derived work"). How is CommonsClause-licensed shared source dealing with large enterprises employing contractors for working with their software? Is the contractor in breach of CommonsClause but the large enterprise isn't?
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.
As somebody who licenses software as AGPL, could you please list those?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your comment is not productive. It attempts to substitute emotion, misplaced empathy, and ultimately social shaming in place of a discussion of the linguistic and economic issues that this Redis affair is surfacing. Your post amounts to a ban on criticism, on made on the grounds that it might make people feel bad. It's an attempt to end discussion, not further it. Much like proprietary software licensing, this approa…
You know what's not productive? Lacking empathy. Lacking tact. Lacking decency. You wanna have a discussion on Commons Clause, there's a perfectly respectable thread two posts over on Drew DeVault's blog post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forbidding commercial use doesn't make something closed source but it does make it proprietary. The compliment of Open Source isn't closed source.
Can you give an example of something that's neither open source nor closed source, or of something that's both open source and closed source?
Not closed source since the source is public and freely given [1]. Not open source because the license [2] forbids use based on field of endeavor which is required in the OSD [3].
[1] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee [2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/blob/master/LICENSE [3] https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Not that Wikipedia is a source of truth but it does corroborate that at least some other people agree with this analysis [4].
[4] https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_source
Edit:
As for the other direction, you can't have software be Open Source and closed source simultaneously since being Open Source requires the source to be available. Or in symbols.
Free Software ⊆ Open Source ⊆ source-available
closed source ∪ source-available = 𝕌
closed source ∩ source-available = ∅
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forbidding commercial use doesn't make something closed source but it does make it proprietary. The compliment of Open Source isn't closed source.
Can you give an example of something that's neither open source nor closed source, or of something that's both open source and closed source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your comment is not productive. It attempts to substitute emotion, misplaced empathy, and ultimately social shaming in place of a discussion of the linguistic and economic issues that this Redis affair is surfacing. Your post amounts to a ban on criticism, on made on the grounds that it might make people feel bad. It's an attempt to end discussion, not further it. Much like proprietary software licensing, this approa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't. Anyone is able to redistribute these Redis Modules under the same license.
Here is the Free Redistribution section: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources." Yiftech commented that the reason for making the switch was that "AGPL does not prevent cloud providers (such as AWS) from building managed services from these modules". The entire reason fo…
You're probably looking for #6:
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. ... or in this case, "offering Redis with extension X as a Service"