3 ms·
I really don’t get why Redis didn’t keep the same license but with an addendum that companies (where this applies to the ultimate parent company) that have more
by eigenvalue 2y ago
I really don’t get why Redis didn’t keep the same license but with an addendum that companies (where this applies to the ultimate parent company) that have more than some huge amount of revenue (say, $5 billion), can’t resell it. Similar to the license provision for the Llama2 model. That wouldn’t upset people nearly as much, since it would only apply to a handful of hyper scalers, and then Redis the company could cut deals with all of them to make a bit of money. Now they will end up with much less because of these fully open source competitors that were only created because of their foolish license change.
- theamk 2y agoThis would mean every startup that hopes to be acquired will avoid it. ("resell" is legally complex, and lawyers during acquisitions are very cautious)
- abdullahkhalids 2y agoI agree. The dual licenses don't really slice reality the way they want them to - that large companies should pay, and everyone else should use for free. So just say that. Pick a revenue number, and say that anyone above that number should contact for an alternate license. To answer sibling comment by theamk: I think such projects should just disclose their rates up front.