5 ms·
I clarified that the Redis core (https://github.com/antirez/redis https://github.com/antirez/redis) remains BSD, and what I think about the license switch Redis
by antirez 8y ago
I clarified that the Redis core (https://github.com/antirez/redis https://github.com/antirez/redis) remains BSD, and what I think about the license switch Redis Labs is operating on certain Redis Modules.
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032180321834467330 https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032180321834467330
and the considerations thread:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032192721308594176 https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032192721308594176
- erikrothoff 8y agoSorry to hijack this thread, but am I understanding correctly that Disque will be AGPL? Does that mean that building a SaaS using Disque would require me to open source the code that uses Disque? Is that the reasoning why you are choosing AGPL? Thanks for your awesome work btw.
- antirez 8y agoHello, yes indeed Disque will be AGPL and all the changes operated in order to create an SaaS related to Disque will have to be open sourced as well. The reason of the license switch is that I do no longer consider acceptable for cloud providers to take the value generated elsewhere and monetize without providing anything back. I was a big BSD supporter but it no longer works in the cloud era for system software IMHO.
- erikrothoff 8y agoOur use-case would be installing Redis with Disque on our servers (VPS) to run it for our own infrastructure. Job queues n such. Not sell it to other users as ”hosted disque” etc. Is that a use case you are against too?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- antirez 8y agoNo the end goal is not to go against your use case, but as a side effect AGPL will actually remand even this use case to make the changes available.
- numbsafari 8y agoTo be clear, you are referring to changes to Disqueue code itself and not any code or service that communicates with with Disqueue via its APIs, or the configuration that I use when launching Disqueue (e.g. my disqueue.conf). Said another way, if I make a patch to the binary that I compile to, for example, fix a bug that isn't yet in upstream or to add a feature that isn't yet in upstream, I must make those changes available as per AGPL. Is that understanding correct?
- ricardobeat 8y ago> Redis Labs is growing very fast, but yet not enough people IMHO understand that it's worth to buy the service from the folks that invest in the OSS side of such system. I fail to see the problem. Aren't people choosing to buy from other providers because it's easier / better in some way? Not personal: It's totally fine to make proprietary software, but I find this post-rationalization about fairness totally off-putting. Something was released as BSD, it's given away. If the maintenance workload is 'unfair', stop working on it, make a proprietary fork and charge money for it, but no need to hide under the pretense of being taken advantage of or 'OSS is failing' - to me that's exactly the spirit. Make software available to others, in exchange for being able to build a business in top of theirs. Fairness is not part of the equation.
- mijoharas 8y agoLooks like he has expanded on this here: http://antirez.com/news/120 http://antirez.com/news/120 thanks for the clarification @antirez.