3 ms·
Sorry 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 ope
by erikrothoff 8y ago
Sorry 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?