Redis will remain BSD licensed

Post by DickScarington » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 2:23 AM UTC

  neural-redis BSD
  RediSearch AGPL
  rediSQL AGPL-3.0
  ReJSON AGPL
  Redis AGPL
  redis-cell MIT
  Redis-ML AGPL
  redis-timerseries AGPL
  cthulhu BSD
  rebloom AGPL
  redis-cuckoofilter MIT
  redis-roaring MIT
  redis-tdigest MIT
  Session MIT
  countminsketch AGPL
  topk AGPL
  ReDe MIT
  commentDis MIT

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 5:33 AM UTC

kfogel wrote: post #187

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…

"...a few people here (and other threads) have asked why we didn't create a new proprietary license..." But, you did create a new proprietary license. That's what ${ANY_OPEN_SOURCE_LICENSE} + COMMONS_CLAUSE is. All this is is a proprietary fork of Redis. It's no different than if someone else -- someone other than Redis Labs -- had done it. What's unusual here is just the reluctance on Redis Labs' part to call it wha…

Post by pritambaral » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 7:33 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #175

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.

> 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. I'm not so sure about that. If it is only on an internal network, where everyone who uses it is using it in their capacity as employees of the organization, would the source code obligation apply to them personally, or would it apply to the company because the…

Post by nailer » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:34 AM UTC

nailer wrote: post #76

XiZhao wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Commons Clause clearly acknowledges this in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/

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…

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 11:57 AM UTC

slavik81 wrote: post #148

maxerickson wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The baseline is pretty high to call anything a resurgence. I guess by revenue dollar most software is already proprietary, it's just billed as a service or whatnot. Considering all the code inside of companies, it's probably the case that most lines of code are also proprietary.

Revenue is probably not a good measure, as an open source solution tends to reduce market size as measured by dollars spent. From Bob Young, founder of Red Hat: > The reality is most of our users don’t pay us squat [...] Our business model [showed] that if we had millions of users, we only needed one-tenth of our users to actually find something of value to pay Red Hat for. > If Microsoft’s earning $40 billion worth…