23 ms·
Yep this should be reworded to something like: This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license, the Apache 2 OSS license with the commercial Com
by antirez 8y ago
Yep this should be reworded to something like:
This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license, the Apache 2 OSS license with the commercial Common Clause restricting certain freedoms.
- rectang 8y agoIt is not "mixed OSS/commercial", because it is not OSS. Using the text of the Apache License 2.0 as a point of departure is fine. But please make it clear what you are doing.
- jahewson 8y agoThe problem here is that the end result is not the Apache 2.0 license anymore. It’s something else. Using the Apache name in this context raises some serious eyebrows. By all means keep the common core concept for Redis but I urge you to get as far away from this toxic “Common Clause” pseudo-license as possible.
- PeterisP 8y agoThat would be actively misleading - "This software is licensed under a mixed OSS/commercial license" implies the traditional dual-licenced model where you offer both an open source licence (e.g. GPL) and a commercial licence. Those who want an open source licence can choose that one, and those who want some extra options can choose the commercial licence. That's not the case here, there's no choice to get an OSS licence. The difference between this and the restrictions in other OSS licences is that the "common clause" restricts core freedoms - if you attach it to something, that something ceases to be an open source licence, this clause transforms into a commercial licence that prohibits free use of the software. There's nothing mixed about it, it's a "not-OSS" licence.