2 ms·
Isn't that what redict is?
by kqr 3y ago
Isn't that what redict is?
- kazinator 3y agoI see that it is. So then I don't see what the hoopla is about at all. The software is all there. Some dickheads forked a proprietary version. They got the name, which will be their consolation prize in their voyage to irrelevance; nice knowing you. Meanwhile, what everyone uses marches on.
- palata 3y agoI believe that the hoopla is about the CLA. It feels immoral for an open source project to accept contributions but require a CLA, and later change the license for all those contributions that were never compensated.
- kazinator 3y agoIf a GPL-ed project requires copyright transfers and then spins a proprietary version, it makes sense for people to be upset. But Redis was BSD or BSD-like, no? Proprietary forks can happen with or without CLA, so it is moot. I would say rather the opposite. If a developer contributes to a BSD (or similar) licensed program (under that same license of course), then at that point they are letting anyone anywhere do whatever they want with the code, as long as copyright notices are preserved. Then, if someone forks a proprietary version of the program (in a way that complies with that developer's license for those files) and that developer gets upset and tries to revoke the copyright license, that developer is the bad actor, not the forkster. In the context of BSD-like permissive licenses, requirments for CLA, I think, would only be a form of legal safeguard against such situations, where people change their mind.
- palata 3y ago> If a GPL-ed project requires copyright transfers and then spins a proprietary version, it makes sense for people to be upset. Yes you're right, I thought it was a copyleft license. But now it is source-available with a CLA. Which in my opinion is a good reason to fork. I would definitely not contribute for free to such a project.