4 ms·

Open Source has a) you guys implement it b) we sell it, thanks problem. This license change addresses this very problem so cloud mega corps can't leech. For m

Open Source has a) you guys implement it b) we sell it, thanks problem. This license change addresses this very problem so cloud mega corps can't leech. For me it sounds like better AGPL. I don't give a shit about philosophical nuances and OSI-approved list – at the end of the day this is much less restrictive license than AGPL - I have source code, I can run it locally, I can run it on my projects, I can run it on my commercial projects, I can run it where I work, I can use it on bare metal, VM, Docker, k8s and from Azure the same way. The fact that Microsoft will have to share cut of the premium they're already charging is irrelevant to me – if anything I applaud for finding sustainable business model around it.

miraculixx 3y ago
Wait, no. You can't run it for anything commercial unless you pay up. That's their whole spiel.
- mirekrusin 3y ago
  Of course you can. You can't if your offer directly competes with redislabs - ie. you are cloud provider and you're selling redis as a service. You have to share your profit margin with them through licensing in this case.
  - chii 3y ago
    > directly competes with redislabs not having read the license (and not a lawyer), i dont know how far or direct it must be for it to be considered directly compete. Surely it's a very blurred area, which would then be rife with risk for anyone to adopt redis from now on.
    - mirekrusin 3y ago
      It's explained in FAQ section. Reselling redis-as-a-service or not is clear cut to me. I'm not so much interested in philosophical explorations of theoretical "what if I resell redis but without this and that command?" cases either.
      - growse 3y ago
        All legal risks are theoretical until you get sued.
        mirekrusin 3y ago
        There is no legal risk if you adhere to plain license terms.
        haneefmubarak 3y ago
        There is a real, non-negligible cost to dealing with even baseless lawsuits. With that said, essentially any decent insurance company will usually be able to price that risk into a shockingly-low cost policy for you (think <0.1% of at-risk revenue).
        mirekrusin 3y ago
        There is no problem with baseless lawsuits in this case. It's plain and simple distinction between USE and PROVIDE. Users don't care. Providers are upset because they can't leech on this work anymore and have to share their cut with upstream. From user's perspective it's open source. From provider's perspective it's not. ps. as a user I also do care about the fact that upstream has found sustainable business model because it means people on the payroll working on it while I can freely use it, inspect and contribute to the code. Frankly I don't want more from open source. I even like it more than SQLite's Public Domain which does not allow upstream contributions.
        growse 3y ago
        I look at the SSPL and don't see plain license terms. I see vague restrictions almost designed to provide opportunity for exciting future litigation.
        mirekrusin 3y ago
        It's dual licensed. It's your choice between SSLPv1 or RSALv2. If your product is open source, then you choose SSLPv1 and you're safe. If your product is closed/commercial, then you choose RSALv2. You probably want to look at RSALv2 [0] instead of SSLPv1. It's very short, plain and simple. With RSALv2 you're safe as long as your product is not a wrapper/database aimed at developers that just exposes redis internals. If it does that then you need to enter agreement with Redis Labs to share your profit margin with them. Ie. if documentation for your offering redirects users to redis docs for usage of your product – you can't use RSALv2 because you're directly competing with Redis Labs with your offering. This means cloud providers are directly impacted, not usual businesses that USE, not OFFER redis. And frankly, that's the way it should be. This is the way to do sustainable, source available, open source compatible (through SSLPv1) business model. [0] https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement
mardifoufs 3y ago
As opposed to leeching from open sourcing your software just to undercut the competitors and then bait and switch into closed source? There's absolutely no problem with wanting to sell your software and being proprietary. But the issue is really that they are a multi million or even billion (hashicorp) who built that value on top of being open source. They are completely within their right to switch licences but it doesn't mean that we have to fall for the narrative that they are protecting themselves from the big guys. Let's be honest, no one would've used redis or terraform if it was closed source. Or if it wasn't available on the big guys platforms. Redis started as a community project and had tons of community contributions. I'm sure that their effort to gain fairness for the smaller guys doesn't apply to anyone smaller than them. It's ironic that they did exactly what they imply the big cloud players did, scoop up open-source work to build corporate value

miraculixx 3y ago

Wait, no. You can't run it for anything commercial unless you pay up. That's their whole spiel.

mirekrusin 3y ago
Of course you can. You can't if your offer directly competes with redislabs - ie. you are cloud provider and you're selling redis as a service. You have to share your profit margin with them through licensing in this case.
- chii 3y ago
  > directly competes with redislabs not having read the license (and not a lawyer), i dont know how far or direct it must be for it to be considered directly compete. Surely it's a very blurred area, which would then be rife with risk for anyone to adopt redis from now on.
  - mirekrusin 3y ago
    It's explained in FAQ section. Reselling redis-as-a-service or not is clear cut to me. I'm not so much interested in philosophical explorations of theoretical "what if I resell redis but without this and that command?" cases either.
    - growse 3y ago
      All legal risks are theoretical until you get sued.
      - mirekrusin 3y ago
        There is no legal risk if you adhere to plain license terms.
        haneefmubarak 3y ago
        There is a real, non-negligible cost to dealing with even baseless lawsuits. With that said, essentially any decent insurance company will usually be able to price that risk into a shockingly-low cost policy for you (think <0.1% of at-risk revenue).
        mirekrusin 3y ago
        There is no problem with baseless lawsuits in this case. It's plain and simple distinction between USE and PROVIDE. Users don't care. Providers are upset because they can't leech on this work anymore and have to share their cut with upstream. From user's perspective it's open source. From provider's perspective it's not. ps. as a user I also do care about the fact that upstream has found sustainable business model because it means people on the payroll working on it while I can freely use it, inspect and contribute to the code. Frankly I don't want more from open source. I even like it more than SQLite's Public Domain which does not allow upstream contributions.
        growse 3y ago
        I look at the SSPL and don't see plain license terms. I see vague restrictions almost designed to provide opportunity for exciting future litigation.
        mirekrusin 3y ago
        It's dual licensed. It's your choice between SSLPv1 or RSALv2. If your product is open source, then you choose SSLPv1 and you're safe. If your product is closed/commercial, then you choose RSALv2. You probably want to look at RSALv2 [0] instead of SSLPv1. It's very short, plain and simple. With RSALv2 you're safe as long as your product is not a wrapper/database aimed at developers that just exposes redis internals. If it does that then you need to enter agreement with Redis Labs to share your profit margin with them. Ie. if documentation for your offering redirects users to redis docs for usage of your product – you can't use RSALv2 because you're directly competing with Redis Labs with your offering. This means cloud providers are directly impacted, not usual businesses that USE, not OFFER redis. And frankly, that's the way it should be. This is the way to do sustainable, source available, open source compatible (through SSLPv1) business model. [0] https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement

mardifoufs 3y ago

As opposed to leeching from open sourcing your software just to undercut the competitors and then bait and switch into closed source? There's absolutely no problem with wanting to sell your software and being proprietary. But the issue is really that they are a multi million or even billion (hashicorp) who built that value on top of being open source. They are completely within their right to switch licences but it doesn't mean that we have to fall for the narrative that they are protecting themselves from the big guys. Let's be honest, no one would've used redis or terraform if it was closed source. Or if it wasn't available on the big guys platforms. Redis started as a community project and had tons of community contributions. I'm sure that their effort to gain fairness for the smaller guys doesn't apply to anyone smaller than them. It's ironic that they did exactly what they imply the big cloud players did, scoop up open-source work to build corporate value