4 ms·

"Redis doing this" -> Redis is BSD licensed, but Redis Labs modules that were never part of Redis itself changed license. Note btw that when something is BSD ca

"Redis doing this" -> Redis is BSD licensed, but Redis Labs modules that were never part of Redis itself changed license. Note btw that when something is BSD can be relicensed by everybody, both the original copyright owners or anyone else.

sseveran 8y ago
I have never used Redis so I cannot comment on what is in Redis vs whatever Redis Labs modules are. I did observe that when the license was changed there was much gnashing of teeth about the license change so clearly at least a subset of potential users were surprised or upset about the license change. I do think much of conversation about license changes is missing what I think the main risk of taking a dependency on an open source project where the license can be changed by the primary contributors with little to no oversight from anyone. And indeed Oracle has demonstrated that this is an issue for software that while proprietary has been free. It may still be the right thing to do to use Redis or MongoDB or the Oracle JVM. Users may be fine with the new licensing terms. Maybe things fork and go their own way. Maybe people wake up to the risk they actually run when signing a contributor agreement (depending on what it contains). I just think there is too little real analysis of the true risks that exist when taking a dependency on a component which might not be supported under the expected licensing terms in the future.
bhickey 8y ago
> when something is BSD can be relicensed by everybody Relicensing is not something that the BSD license permits. The license family is permissive, but a user doesn't have the right to strip out the copyright notice and call it a day.
- cyphar 8y ago
  I think they meant sublicense, which is something that the BSD license permits (though not as explicitly as MIT) because otherwise you wouldn't be able to use BSD code in GPL projects.

sseveran 8y ago

I have never used Redis so I cannot comment on what is in Redis vs whatever Redis Labs modules are. I did observe that when the license was changed there was much gnashing of teeth about the license change so clearly at least a subset of potential users were surprised or upset about the license change. I do think much of conversation about license changes is missing what I think the main risk of taking a dependency on an open source project where the license can be changed by the primary contributors with little to no oversight from anyone. And indeed Oracle has demonstrated that this is an issue for software that while proprietary has been free. It may still be the right thing to do to use Redis or MongoDB or the Oracle JVM. Users may be fine with the new licensing terms. Maybe things fork and go their own way. Maybe people wake up to the risk they actually run when signing a contributor agreement (depending on what it contains). I just think there is too little real analysis of the true risks that exist when taking a dependency on a component which might not be supported under the expected licensing terms in the future.

bhickey 8y ago

> when something is BSD can be relicensed by everybody Relicensing is not something that the BSD license permits. The license family is permissive, but a user doesn't have the right to strip out the copyright notice and call it a day.

cyphar 8y ago
I think they meant sublicense, which is something that the BSD license permits (though not as explicitly as MIT) because otherwise you wouldn't be able to use BSD code in GPL projects.