4 ms·
This is the license below. I'm pretty sure this is going to be vague enough to cause problems with a ton of legal departments. They want to be the only ones hos
by mmastrac 8y ago
This is the license below. I'm pretty sure this is going to be vague enough to cause problems with a ton of legal departments. They want to be the only ones hosting it and the the only ones you call in to help with it.
I get where the Redis folks are coming from, but this is basically a nail in the product and guarantees a fork if they don't turn back.
=== 8< ===
The Software is provided to you by the Licensor under the License, as defined below, subject to the following condition.
Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software.
For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software. Any license notice or attribution required by the License must also include this Commons Cause License Condition notice.
- omeid2 8y agoNot to mention the problem with people who want to provide support and consulting for Redis. No longer legal going forward. A fork is bound to happen if Redis doesn't reconsider this move.
- amckinlay 8y agoI think that licensing restriction only applies if you provide the source to the client.
- dragonwriter 8y agoIt's both vague and combined with an open license which it may expressly contradict. Lazy proprietary software vendors need to write their own proprietary license and not just throw a proprietary modification on top of an FOSS license. You are causing confusion, and if you are trying to maintain some kind of positive vibes from the dev community by keeping an open license underneath the proprietary wrapper, I don't think that's going to work.
- marcinzm 8y ago>substantially Wow, that's a legal landmine. Is there even a legal standard or consensus for what "substantial" means?
- michaelhoffman 8y agoIt's something that would be decided by a judge or a jury.
- sleepychu 8y agoRight, exactly. So at this point how am I supposed to use your software for anything commercial at all, without the fear that one day you'll decide it's offering me substantial value? (If the answer is "Do not" then just license it correctly).
- omeid2 8y agoI know it when I see it.[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- kjeetgill 8y agoRedis core plans to remain BSD. I honestly think this whole thread is missing this and it's incredibly crucial. From the article: > The Redis core is, and always will remain, an open source BSD license. Certain modules, however, are now licensed as “Apache 2.0 modified with Commons Clause.” These modules can be freely used in any application, but selling a product whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from their functionality is prohibited. It's a nail in the coffin for maybe a few niche modules?
- bigiain 8y agoIt's a nail in the coffin for the trust in the company who everybody assumed in good faith would leave BSD licensed code under the BDS license.
- tveita 8y agoAnd Redis Labs with them? Assume for a second that your company gets significant value from these modules and you are happy to pay for support and hosting. Now if Redis Labs goes bankrupt, you're stuck with your business depending on toxic software that you can't pay anyone else to maintain, host or even consult about. You'd be better off paying someone else to maintain the open source version to begin with.