4 ms·

No license can work where it isn't used, AGPL included. Redis has been licensed under BSD 3-clause since at least version 2.2[1]. [1] https://github.com/antire

No license can work where it isn't used, AGPL included. Redis has been licensed under BSD 3-clause since at least version 2.2[1]. [1] https://github.com/antirez/redis/blob/2.2/COPYING https://github.com/antirez/redis/blob/2.2/COPYING

quadrangle 8y ago
I think the point is that there had been separate modules that were AGPL but still being used…?
- chriswarbo 8y ago
  Looks like it, according to https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl > We wanted to keep our modules open source, so that everyone can freely use them, enhance them and fix issues. On the other hand, we are a commercial entity that invests a lot of time, effort and money developing these modules and verifying they can work under extreme deployment conditions. Therefore, we wanted to make sure no one else can resell them for commercial purposes. That last sentence is key: it shows the preamble to be a smokescreen, since they're explicitly stating that they're against the literal number 1 criterion of open source (as per https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd ): > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This condition appears before any related to source code. In other words, RedisLabs are pulling the classic "we want our software to be proprietary, but we also want other people to fix our bugs for free" (see also "Shared Source" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ). They thought releasing under the AGPL would strike that balance, but it turns out it didn't so they've now gone to a proprietary license like they always wanted.

quadrangle 8y ago

I think the point is that there had been separate modules that were AGPL but still being used…?

chriswarbo 8y ago
Looks like it, according to https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl https://redislabs.com/blog/why-redis-labs-modules-are-agpl > We wanted to keep our modules open source, so that everyone can freely use them, enhance them and fix issues. On the other hand, we are a commercial entity that invests a lot of time, effort and money developing these modules and verifying they can work under extreme deployment conditions. Therefore, we wanted to make sure no one else can resell them for commercial purposes. That last sentence is key: it shows the preamble to be a smokescreen, since they're explicitly stating that they're against the literal number 1 criterion of open source (as per https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd ): > 1. Free Redistribution > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. This condition appears before any related to source code. In other words, RedisLabs are pulling the classic "we want our software to be proprietary, but we also want other people to fix our bugs for free" (see also "Shared Source" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ). They thought releasing under the AGPL would strike that balance, but it turns out it didn't so they've now gone to a proprietary license like they always wanted.