4 ms·
To be fair most of the complains were about the model. And such complains where pretty pointless since no resource to write Redis core is take in order to write
by antirez 8y ago
To be fair most of the complains were about the model. And such complains where pretty pointless since no resource to write Redis core is take in order to write Redis modules. Fortunately (haha) Redis OSS was always just me and sometimes (like now that there is Fabio part time just to OSS side) some other collaborator, very few people allocated there, plus the very important contributions from Redis Labs devs, Alibaba devs, and so forth. I agree that criticizing the Commons Clause makes more sense, I did not follow closely how the license was created, but the process was to let N vendors to use the same clause so that the basic license was still valid but with the added restriction. It was AFAIK a non evil process, but actually now that I read the complains about Commons Clause I can see more how that could be better with new names for each license that each vendor used. Maybe you just cut&paste the clause into the OSS license you are using, but then you call it <company> Commercial License.
- nailer 8y ago> Maybe you just cut&paste the clause into the OSS license you are using, but then you call it <company> Commercial License. Yep, I think that would make it better too. Redis: BSD (or whatever OSS licence) Redis X module: Redis non commercial License Redis Y module: Redis non commercial License
- wvenable 8y ago> To be fair most of the complains were about the model. To be fair, if they'd just said hey we're selling these proprietary licensed modules then there wouldn't be much of debate. As others have pointed out, many other OSS projects do just that. Instead mass confusion has erupted and literally every word debated ad nauseam -- including, now, the model.