3 ms·

Redis from Redis Labs, available under a choice of its own license or the SSPL, is pretty close to truly open-source, IMO closer to it than the BUSL, which is a

Redis from Redis Labs, available under a choice of its own license or the SSPL, is pretty close to truly open-source, IMO closer to it than the BUSL, which is another source-available license. It is pretty similar to the AGPLv3, and they even credibly applied to get it OSI-approved. https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-side-public-license https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-sid... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/how-to-interpret-the-sspl-terms-on-licensing-the-service-under-sspl https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/how-to-... What it isn't close to is the original license, which is a permissive open source license. The license switch-up is why a fork was needed. Matrix did a similar thing with the AGPL which alas, doesn't have a major fork. https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/ https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/ Although it's technically still open source, they didn't do right by the contributors to it.

jenadine 2y ago
If the new license is so similar to the AGPL, why did they not pick AGPL as one of the license options in order to keep a well known OSI-aproved license?
- adolph 2y ago
  Yes, picking the same license is at least some security against a backdoor of some crafty IP lawyer.
lmm 2y ago
Every license is a unique snowflake, but if you're going to stay sane and get on with your life you need some categories and lines. Redis is not available under a license that is open-source in any of the usual senses - not OSI-approved, not DFSG-compatible, not FSF-approved. That is a big deal. Matrix remains open source under a license that meets all those criteria. It's not a technical distinction, it's the line in the sand that stops open-source from being whittled away to nothing.
andrewshadura 2y ago
It's not truly open source if the most basic freedom, freedom to use code for any purpose, is not fulfilled.

jenadine 2y ago

If the new license is so similar to the AGPL, why did they not pick AGPL as one of the license options in order to keep a well known OSI-aproved license?

adolph 2y ago
Yes, picking the same license is at least some security against a backdoor of some crafty IP lawyer.

lmm 2y ago

Every license is a unique snowflake, but if you're going to stay sane and get on with your life you need some categories and lines. Redis is not available under a license that is open-source in any of the usual senses - not OSI-approved, not DFSG-compatible, not FSF-approved. That is a big deal. Matrix remains open source under a license that meets all those criteria. It's not a technical distinction, it's the line in the sand that stops open-source from being whittled away to nothing.

andrewshadura 2y ago

It's not truly open source if the most basic freedom, freedom to use code for any purpose, is not fulfilled.