331–340 of 815 posts
Great to see this. 12 years ago I wrote https://github.com/rcarmo/miniredis during a very slow weekend where I both wanted to get a feel for the internals of how Redis worked and have a little PubSub server I could call my own. I spent the entire weekend poring over the C code and found it some of the most beautiful C I'd ever read (ever since the heady years of SunOS), and now I feel I should at least go and update…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re confusing open source and open to contribution. Is SQLite not open-source?
Perhaps... when I look at an Open Source codebase, I expect there to not just be source you can read, but also a way to contribute and engage with the codebase creators, beyond just bug reporting (aka. Github Issues). While it may technically be open source due to it's license and you can literally go look at the source - Microsoft is operating these codebases as-if they are proprietary. Every decision is made out of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted. In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just goin…
Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it? I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself. But why would accepting contributions be required?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. Company can easily change license at any time. No string attached.
I believe AGPL + time + contributors makes that very difficult. It also means that if you have a commercial product that uses Redis you need to open source your stuff though, so not net better imu. Please correct me if I am wrong.
https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Garnet has a discord server and has been actively accepting community PRs, so I don’t know what kind of nonsense you are on about. What is it with .NET that compels you to lie? Also FOSS and open contribution are different things, as sibling comment notes.
MIT license is not FOSS, it's OSS at best.
If you think otherwise, I suggest checking if there's any aluminium foil on your head.
I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.) I have a great deal of respect for ant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They require a Contributor License Agreement [0] whereby you grant them the copyright to your contribution. Which means they become the ultimate decision-maker for all contributions and can relicense however and whenever they wish. [0] https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...
A contributor license agreement that does anything besides put your code under the project's standard OSS license is a huge red flag.
CyanogenMod required a CLA to assign them copyright to Cyanogen Inc, only for them to basically kill the project. They forked it as LineageOS only to still require a CLA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not quite. Company can easily change license at any time. No string attached.
I believe AGPL + time + contributors makes that very difficult. It also means that if you have a commercial product that uses Redis you need to open source your stuff though, so not net better imu. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only real reason to use non-copyleft licenses for these kinds of projects is to be able to do the rug pull, so you should have expected it instead of feeling betrayed. I imagine they will now require copyright assignment or something like that for external contributors to be able to relicense new code under a commercial license.
A copyleft license like the AGPL didn't stop MongoDB from rugpulling. I'd argue that the AGPL, and the copyright assignment that tends to go with it, makes it easier to rugpull because forking entities would be at an extreme disadvantage in keeping the lights on compared to the closed-sourcing company. A non-copyleft license, on the other hand, makes it much easier for a forking company to cover all the same niches a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the AGPL doesn't actually require this, even though MinIO may think it does. I hope someone gets sued over this some day so we may find out
It would not even make sense. Since you do not even always know what license the thing has you are connecting to. And not even the fsf sees it that way.
I'm no lawyer, but unless the software in question makes an exception for the particular API, I wouldn't feel confident.
Or what is the distinction here?