5 ms·

The biggest change here is the name. Instead of "Apache 2 modified with Commons Clause", which risked causing confusion with Open Source software, and with Crea

by mrob 8y ago

The biggest change here is the name. Instead of "Apache 2 modified with Commons Clause", which risked causing confusion with Open Source software, and with Creative Commons licenses, we get the much clearer "Redis Source Available License". "Source available" is standard terminology for this type of proprietary software license, so nobody should be mislead. I approve.

CharlesW 8y ago
That helps me understand what's different this time, thank you.
Pyxl101 8y ago
Thanks for pointing that out. That is a clearer name for their proprietary license. On that note, the title of the article is misleading. Redis hasn't changed its open source license. Redis remains BSD-licensed. This article is about the change in the proprietary license of certain Redis Modules.
- numbsafari 8y ago
  The title isn’t misleading, but the name of Redis Labs is. I would wager that far less confusion and hand wringing would have gone on with this if the company were named something else, like sbaL sideR.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Rule 1 of open source licensing journalism: The title must be misleading. Otherwise, who would read this stuff?
dcbadacd 8y ago
I think it's still open-source, it's just not free (as in freedom) software. I'm annoyed how suddenly redis, even when source is available, is put into the same bin as say MSSQL, with rest of the "proprietary software".
- gdwatson 8y ago
  The usual definition of open source is the Open Source Definition,[1] which was adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines[2]. The sixth item prohibits discrimination against fields of endeavor, which this new license would violate. It's more like an especially generous version of shared source than open source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    I do not agree that some organization can define what open source is and everyone else can't. That's not free.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Because there is minimal value in being able to read but not use the source
  - Semaphor 8y ago
    Not sure the value is minimal. Many people read the .net framework source to get a better understanding even though you weren't allowed to do anything with it
- akerl_ 8y ago
  It’s worth noting (and Redis Labs has attempted to note in the body of the article) that Redis (the database) remains open source, as it always has been. Neither the “Common Clause” change or this change affect the database, just the modules published to extend Redis, by Redis Labs.
- doesnt_know 8y ago
  They are the same. The full .NET framework effectively had the full source code available to read as the "Reference Source" but there was never any doubt it was proprietary. https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ You can mince words and make inconsequential adjustments to proprietary software licenses but they are still proprietary.
karianna 8y ago
Was very happy to see the rename. I participated in the review threads at the OSI and whilst I have a lot of sympathy for Redis, Mongo and others (I’m a closed source software CEO myself) I felt strongly that open source is not a business model and the definition of open source licenses should be kept strict to the OSD freedoms defined by the OSI. Well done to Redis for making this clear
- ataturk 8y ago
  I work with Kafka and Cassandra a lot. Datastax and Confluent try hard to add value but fall pretty short imo. I guess there's enough consulting they can do with companies who don't have or don't want to have expensive developers hanging around. But honestly, if they're too expensive for the tippy top of the Fortune 500, who are they for?
- kemitchell 8y ago
  I recently quit the OSI lists, and am glad I did. I once believed that the OSD did a good job of defining the criteria for open source licenses. That changed by experience of how it's actually applied, how it fails, and how OSI fails to redress. The more I dug into available mailing list archives, the clearer it became that the problem isn't new. It's not just strong copyleft licenses and the constant stream of human rights licenses. It's the FRAND standards patent problem. It's the license-or-contract confusion. The situation now, as I see it, is that OSD is largely window dressing for OSI. The OSD is vague and incomplete, but sounds official and technocratic. So it functions as window dressing for the prerogative of those with sway at OSI, to call it as they see it.

by mrob 8y ago

CharlesW 8y ago

That helps me understand what's different this time, thank you.

Pyxl101 8y ago

Thanks for pointing that out. That is a clearer name for their proprietary license. On that note, the title of the article is misleading. Redis hasn't changed its open source license. Redis remains BSD-licensed. This article is about the change in the proprietary license of certain Redis Modules.

numbsafari 8y ago
The title isn’t misleading, but the name of Redis Labs is. I would wager that far less confusion and hand wringing would have gone on with this if the company were named something else, like sbaL sideR.
kemitchell 8y ago
Rule 1 of open source licensing journalism: The title must be misleading. Otherwise, who would read this stuff?

dcbadacd 8y ago

I think it's still open-source, it's just not free (as in freedom) software. I'm annoyed how suddenly redis, even when source is available, is put into the same bin as say MSSQL, with rest of the "proprietary software".

gdwatson 8y ago
The usual definition of open source is the Open Source Definition,[1] which was adapted from the Debian Free Software Guidelines[2]. The sixth item prohibits discrimination against fields of endeavor, which this new license would violate. It's more like an especially generous version of shared source than open source. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd [2] https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  I do not agree that some organization can define what open source is and everyone else can't. That's not free.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
michaelmrose 8y ago
Because there is minimal value in being able to read but not use the source
- Semaphor 8y ago
  Not sure the value is minimal. Many people read the .net framework source to get a better understanding even though you weren't allowed to do anything with it
akerl_ 8y ago
It’s worth noting (and Redis Labs has attempted to note in the body of the article) that Redis (the database) remains open source, as it always has been. Neither the “Common Clause” change or this change affect the database, just the modules published to extend Redis, by Redis Labs.
doesnt_know 8y ago
They are the same. The full .NET framework effectively had the full source code available to read as the "Reference Source" but there was never any doubt it was proprietary. https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ https://referencesource.microsoft.com/ You can mince words and make inconsequential adjustments to proprietary software licenses but they are still proprietary.

karianna 8y ago

Was very happy to see the rename. I participated in the review threads at the OSI and whilst I have a lot of sympathy for Redis, Mongo and others (I’m a closed source software CEO myself) I felt strongly that open source is not a business model and the definition of open source licenses should be kept strict to the OSD freedoms defined by the OSI. Well done to Redis for making this clear

ataturk 8y ago
I work with Kafka and Cassandra a lot. Datastax and Confluent try hard to add value but fall pretty short imo. I guess there's enough consulting they can do with companies who don't have or don't want to have expensive developers hanging around. But honestly, if they're too expensive for the tippy top of the Fortune 500, who are they for?
kemitchell 8y ago
I recently quit the OSI lists, and am glad I did. I once believed that the OSD did a good job of defining the criteria for open source licenses. That changed by experience of how it's actually applied, how it fails, and how OSI fails to redress. The more I dug into available mailing list archives, the clearer it became that the problem isn't new. It's not just strong copyleft licenses and the constant stream of human rights licenses. It's the FRAND standards patent problem. It's the license-or-contract confusion. The situation now, as I see it, is that OSD is largely window dressing for OSI. The OSD is vague and incomplete, but sounds official and technocratic. So it functions as window dressing for the prerogative of those with sway at OSI, to call it as they see it.