4 ms·
> It used to be that you could pick an open source project and build a business on it and expect that the project would stay available to you under those well u
by berkes 2y ago
> It used to be that you could pick an open source project and build a business on it and expect that the project would stay available to you under those well understood terms.
I'm not familiar with what's happening in this Redis licence change.
But if it was Open Source at version N, and you built your business (or stack, etc) on top of that, N will remain forever available to you as FLOSS, not?
Is the problem maybe that ppl expect future updates, maintenance to remain Open Source? Something that, AFAIK, no Open Source licence guarantees? So, misaligned expectations?
> That's not the case any more - not just because of Redis, there are a number of other high-profile license rug-pulling projects.
It's not new. MySQL, Redhat and many others have done this for ages in the floss community.
- alecco 2y agoNote his "build a business on it" angle. It's not an open source problem. Greedy techbros want free support forever from the community while contributing almost nothing back. Same for large corporations. They see this as "rug pulling". I think developers need to do a lot more of that for things to change.
- thanksgiving 2y agoOP wrote > The license language is almost the same as the AGPL, with changes regarding the SAAS stuff. So, not OSI approved? Yes, but I have issues calling the SSPL a closed license. What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed? Why can't we have an AGPL 1.1 or 2.0 if it is a breaking change? I am not saying anyirez is wrong. I would like to learn why this was necessary, if at all.
- alecco 2y ago> What is it that changed from AGPL in SSPL that was absolutely needed? https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8028 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/8028 Big cloud players would put a thin layer on top and ignore the AGPL.