4 ms·

Actually, if i read the below correct, on the server-side side license part, they want any company to publish the source code of any Redis-as-a-Service product

Actually, if i read the below correct, on the server-side side license part, they want any company to publish the source code of any Redis-as-a-Service product is being developed: If you make the functionality of the Program or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version. Which sounds pretty good and is the complete opposite of what Mongo or Elastic are doing.

LikelyABurner 3y ago
Yeah, I don't like that we're at the point that we need licenses like this, but in a world where AWS has decided to "disrupt" the methods for open source monetization that the open source community has generally agreed upon as being in the spirit of open source, I don't see any other option.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The methods in question are not the ones that the open source community has agreed upon, they are ones that the FOSS community had identified as being non-viable, with detailed reasoning, before the OSI was even founded. The fact that a handful of founders and VCs decided to ignore this established wisdom does not constitute an general agreement by the “open source community”. The consensus that simply selling FOSS software (and renting access to it is not substantially different in this regard) is not a viable method of monetizing FOSS as an independent business centered around a particular piece of FOSS because large established firms with established hardware, professional services, and other associated lines of business and the ability to integrate it with their other offerings would eat your lunch was established by, at the latest, the mid-1990s.
c-flow 3y ago
Elastic also has a dual license.
happymellon 3y ago
Why not just use the AGPL?

LikelyABurner 3y ago

Yeah, I don't like that we're at the point that we need licenses like this, but in a world where AWS has decided to "disrupt" the methods for open source monetization that the open source community has generally agreed upon as being in the spirit of open source, I don't see any other option.

dragonwriter 3y ago
The methods in question are not the ones that the open source community has agreed upon, they are ones that the FOSS community had identified as being non-viable, with detailed reasoning, before the OSI was even founded. The fact that a handful of founders and VCs decided to ignore this established wisdom does not constitute an general agreement by the “open source community”. The consensus that simply selling FOSS software (and renting access to it is not substantially different in this regard) is not a viable method of monetizing FOSS as an independent business centered around a particular piece of FOSS because large established firms with established hardware, professional services, and other associated lines of business and the ability to integrate it with their other offerings would eat your lunch was established by, at the latest, the mid-1990s.

c-flow 3y ago

Elastic also has a dual license.

happymellon 3y ago

Why not just use the AGPL?