5 ms·

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow,

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Do BSD or MIT and be done with it. It seems needlessly ideological. Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.

skywhopper 3y ago
Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
  - ksec 3y ago
    Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached. So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux? Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left. It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is. My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
      - drewdevault 3y ago
        > Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.
        drewdevault 3y ago
        A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        drewdevault 3y ago
        I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
  - RUnconcerned 3y ago
    The GPL has more strings attached than the LGPL.
  - forgotpwd16 3y ago
    Redict is LGPL, a less restrictive GPL allowing linking to projects with other licenses.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      Yes, but Redis was even less restrictive to begin with.
  - benterix 3y ago
    Yes, Linux and Git are GPL-ed, so the parent is asking if you also feel about them in the same way as about this Redis fork ("needlessly ideological", "have strings attached" etc.).
wyldfire 3y ago
> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict picked (LGPL 3.0). It is incorrect to try and lump this in with source-available licenses that are IMO anathema to Open Source.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  The OSI doesn’t represent everyone. It’s simply a fact that MIT for instance allows things like Redict and this discussion to take place, as well as other things. It is maximally permissive.
  - wyldfire 3y ago
    > The OSI doesn’t represent everyone. Sure, sure. But the term Open Source has a meaning. Ultimately terms have meaning based on their usage in the language. For 'Open Source', its usage happens to reflect the same meaning enshrined by OSI. > It is maximally permissive. It appears that there are now several redis forks, with several licenses. For the most part: everybody wins. If you prefer the MIT license, maybe you would prefer to contribute to the BSD-licensed Valkey. And if not, you can fork redis too.
  - xorcist 3y ago
    They don't, but they were established for a singular reason, to shepherd the term "open source". A term that was chosen on terms of having little previous use. They did not succeed with the trademark application because the term was deemed too descriptive, not from a lack of trying. So we should probably respect their term if we want to use it. There are plenty of other terms you can choose instead, such as "permissively licensed software" which also has a de facto established meaning.
falcor84 3y ago
As another comment mentioned, copyleft would prevent commits to this project from being merged into Redis, intentionally making this a "hard fork". I do think it's ideological, but it's doesn't seem needless to me - there is a real ideological battle to be fought here.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I don’t understand why that is a bad thing. Perhaps a closed source fork will end up being superior through incentives only available through closing the source. Humanity still can use an open source fork. More options must be superior, no?
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> That’s what open source would allow, no? That's what a permissive license would allow, which is a subset of Open Source. > I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Redis doesn't give you the 4 freedoms; in point, "The freedom to run the program for any purpose". > Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. This literally is open source.

skywhopper 3y ago

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

endisneigh 3y ago
Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
- ksec 3y ago
  Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached. So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux? Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left. It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is. My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
    - drewdevault 3y ago
      > Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.
        drewdevault 3y ago
        A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.
        endisneigh 3y ago
        I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        drewdevault 3y ago
        I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practice: freedom of the press is guaranteed by restricting the government from censorship, workers rights are guaranteed by restricting the freedom of businesses to exploit them, etc. In practice all freedoms require someone to give something up. Even with permissive licenses, you are giving up the sole right to your IP and the sole to commercialize your software.
- RUnconcerned 3y ago
  The GPL has more strings attached than the LGPL.
- forgotpwd16 3y ago
  Redict is LGPL, a less restrictive GPL allowing linking to projects with other licenses.
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    Yes, but Redis was even less restrictive to begin with.
- benterix 3y ago
  Yes, Linux and Git are GPL-ed, so the parent is asking if you also feel about them in the same way as about this Redis fork ("needlessly ideological", "have strings attached" etc.).

wyldfire 3y ago

> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict picked (LGPL 3.0). It is incorrect to try and lump this in with source-available licenses that are IMO anathema to Open Source.

endisneigh 3y ago
The OSI doesn’t represent everyone. It’s simply a fact that MIT for instance allows things like Redict and this discussion to take place, as well as other things. It is maximally permissive.
- wyldfire 3y ago
  > The OSI doesn’t represent everyone. Sure, sure. But the term Open Source has a meaning. Ultimately terms have meaning based on their usage in the language. For 'Open Source', its usage happens to reflect the same meaning enshrined by OSI. > It is maximally permissive. It appears that there are now several redis forks, with several licenses. For the most part: everybody wins. If you prefer the MIT license, maybe you would prefer to contribute to the BSD-licensed Valkey. And if not, you can fork redis too.
- xorcist 3y ago
  They don't, but they were established for a singular reason, to shepherd the term "open source". A term that was chosen on terms of having little previous use. They did not succeed with the trademark application because the term was deemed too descriptive, not from a lack of trying. So we should probably respect their term if we want to use it. There are plenty of other terms you can choose instead, such as "permissively licensed software" which also has a de facto established meaning.

falcor84 3y ago

As another comment mentioned, copyleft would prevent commits to this project from being merged into Redis, intentionally making this a "hard fork". I do think it's ideological, but it's doesn't seem needless to me - there is a real ideological battle to be fought here.

endisneigh 3y ago
I don’t understand why that is a bad thing. Perhaps a closed source fork will end up being superior through incentives only available through closing the source. Humanity still can use an open source fork. More options must be superior, no?

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> That’s what open source would allow, no? That's what a permissive license would allow, which is a subset of Open Source. > I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Redis doesn't give you the 4 freedoms; in point, "The freedom to run the program for any purpose". > Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. This literally is open source.