3 ms·
The problem is the entire stack has to be released under the SSPL. Which means if you want to offer it as a service, you can't use it on GNU/linux, since you d
by RobotToaster 3y ago
The problem is the entire stack has to be released under the SSPL.
Which means if you want to offer it as a service, you can't use it on GNU/linux, since you don't have permission to release it under the SSPL.
edited to add: this could easily be remedied by simply requiring the entire stack to be published under either the SSPL or an OSI/FSF approved license. Such a license (somewhat ironically) probably wouldn't be approved by the OSI/FSF, but it would solve the main issue with it. Although I also suspect the people using the SSPL consider this a "feature not a bug" of their psuedo-open-source licence.
- u320 3y agoHow can it be used at all under SSPL then? There are no operating systems on which Redis runs that uses that license.
- RobotToaster 3y agoYou only need to do that if you operate it as a service that you sell or give away to others (rather than just running your own internal redis instance) So yes, this basically prohibits anyone but redis from operating it as a service, unless you write your own operating system for it to run on. (Although presumably they will sell you licences or similar to operate it as a service)
- aragilar 3y agoThat's why it's dual licensed.
- bawolff 3y agoThat's essentially why people think its not-free. In essence, it pretends to give you the right to do something, but puts impossible to meet requirements so that in pracitise you cannot do the thing. In essence, the license says you cannot use it as SASS software, but they didn't want to outright say that, so they did this instead.
- cvalka 3y agoThat's the point! It's impossible to comply with it. If it were an open source license, it'd require every component to be released under an open source license.
- redwood 3y agoI don't believe that was the intent. If you look at the text it's more focused on the unique software that goes into delivering the service itself ... but since the goal of the SSPL was in many ways to reduce ambiguity compared to the AGPL, I think this perspective should be reflected upon and perhaps incorporated into a future version of the SSPL.
- e12e 3y agoLet's say you deploy a work queue service backed by Redis, with authz/n delegated to Azure AD. You would require a commercial license since you can't publish Azure AD?
- tormeh 3y agoIsn't SSPL compatible with the GPL? If so you could "just" republish your stack under the new license. Not sure how feasible this strategy is in practice, as any company's stack is vast and no one wants to enumerate it all...
- cowsandmilk 3y ago> Isn't SSPL compatible with the GPL? Not sure how that could be the case. SSPL places additional restrictions on the usage of the software, so you cannot relicense GPL code as SSPL.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]