Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Codepope (codepope@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 09:10:28 JST Codepope

   in reply to

   • Kyle Davis

   @linux_mclinuxface And it’s an excellent demonstration to never take a companies blog assertion that their software will remain under a free license at face value. A blog is not a contract.

   • clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kyle Davis (linux_mclinuxface@fosstodon.org)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 09:10:29 JST Kyle Davis

     Welp. It's official. #Redis is no longer #OSS

     While I wasn't a contributor to the core, I presented on it dozens of times, talked to thousands, and wrote a book about it.

     I probably wouldn't have done any of that with that kind of license.

     Very disappointed.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
     AnthonyJK-Admin and clacke repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 15:58:52 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • Marty Fouts
     • lucasmz ∞

     @MartyFouts @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface No it is not. No open source license is revocable. What they are doing is not revoking anything but making a choice to license the new versions with some garbage license only, not the original BSD license, which is something a non copyleft open source license like BSD licenses allows *anyone* to do.

     In any case, they've essentially just made a garbage fork of their own product which will be irrelevant in a couple years if not months. 🤷 🤡

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 15:58:53 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • lucasmz ∞

     @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface Yes, alas, with a bunch of caveats about jurisdictions varying. If redis owns the copyright on all of the code they can change the license going forward at any time. Revoking the license on already licensed code is tricky but technically allowed under the BSD license.

     Puniko ? repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     lucasmz ∞ (lucasmz@hachyderm.io)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 15:58:55 JST lucasmz ∞

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis

     @linux_mclinuxface is that even legal

   • Embed this notice
     eri :vlpn_smol::therian: (eri@moth.zone)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 16:19:25 JST eri :vlpn_smol::therian:

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     @linux_mclinuxface never sign a CLA.
     翠星石 and clacke like this.
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 11:54:36 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     @linux_mclinuxface I actually think the SSPL is okay. Have you looked into it? It's almost identical to AGPL except if you offer a cloud service you have to open source the cloud service. I think AWS should be open source. I would love to hear what the unintended consequences would be. To me it seems fine, even good, and everybody is overreacting.
   • Embed this notice
     Alex Gleason (alex@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 11:56:07 JST Alex Gleason

     in reply to

     • Alex Gleason
     • Kyle Davis
     @linux_mclinuxface If I built a cloud service I would open source it. I think if you benefit from somebody's open source work, you should be obligated to share.
   • Embed this notice
     Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko: (roboneko@bae.st)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 12:49:13 JST Neko McCatface v2023 :verified::makemeneko:

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Alex Gleason
     • Kyle Davis
     @alex @linux_mclinuxface to me it's a line in the sand that restrictions based on specifics of the usage aren't acceptable. if the entire thing had started out from the beginning as SSPL I'd appreciate the gesture of the company making their proprietary code base *almost* open source. whereas changing to a non-FOSS license out of the blue after lots of volunteers have contributed under FOSS terms I find highly objectionable. it's a betrayal of the trust placed in them to steward the project
     
     also what @lanodan said about apparently there being no CLA. if that's true then this is a blatant license violation anyway
     Alex Gleason likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Scott Williams 🐧 (vwbusguy@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:28 JST Scott Williams 🐧

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex

     @linux_mclinuxface @ThunderComplex Welp, I'm guessing that means it won't be in EL10 and future versions of Fedora and now I've gotta find a new lock and cache system for Nextcloud.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ThunderComplex (thundercomplex@musicians.today)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:30 JST ThunderComplex

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis

     @linux_mclinuxface So I read this RSAL thingy and this one struck me:
     "You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service or distribute the Software or a Modified version in a manner that makes the functionality of the Software available to third parties."

     So I may not distribute a modified version that makes the software available to 3rd parties.. does this mean that forking redis is illegal???

   • Embed this notice
     Kyle Davis (linux_mclinuxface@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:30 JST Kyle Davis

     in reply to

     • ThunderComplex

     @ThunderComplex You'd need a law degree to fully understand the parameters in that (and IANAL), but I wouldn't personally fork Redis after the license change.

   • Embed this notice
     Codepope (codepope@mastodon.org.uk)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:36 JST Codepope

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis

     @linux_mclinuxface you’ll never guess where I started working when the SSPL was born :)

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kyle Davis (linux_mclinuxface@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:37 JST Kyle Davis

     in reply to

     @codepope Don't I know it.

     I'm having déjà vu from when I had to write this blog post a few years ago.

     https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/stepping-up-for-a-truly-open-source-elasticsearch/

   • Embed this notice
     Hisham (hisham_hm@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:40 JST Hisham

     in reply to

     • Al
     • Kyle Davis

     @mral @linux_mclinuxface Dragonfly uses the BSL, so it's not OSS either. KeyDB is BSD-licensed, which is OSS.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Al (mral@mastodon.sdf.org)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:41 JST Al

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis

     @linux_mclinuxface
     just learned about dragonflyDB and keyDB.

     I'm not sure of how they differ. any info would help.

     #redis #dragonflyDB #keyDB

   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:46 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex

     @ThunderComplex Yes, it's not Open Source. Source Available means the source code is there for your personal study and enjoyment, but you can't reuse it.

     @linux_mclinuxface

   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:47 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex
     • csolisr

     @csolisr @linux_mclinuxface @ThunderComplex No, they received a perpetual BSD license when they first copied the code.

     Redis people aren't even trying to insinuate that old versions are affected, they're explicitly saying that releases from now on are available in parallel under RSALv2 and SSPLv1.

   • Embed this notice
     csolisr (csolisr@hub.azkware.net)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:55 JST csolisr

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex
     @linux_mclinuxface @ThunderComplex And what happens to already-existing forks of Redis, such as KeyDB? Do they become retroactively illegal? github.com/Snapchat/KeyDB
   • Embed this notice
     csolisr (csolisr@hub.azkware.net)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:31:59 JST csolisr

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex
     @linux_mclinuxface @ThunderComplex From what I read in the documentation, the multithreading in #KeyDB needs to be manually opted in via the configuration file - precisely to make the default installation as much of a drop-in replacement as possible. Hopefully it's still the case!
     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kyle Davis (linux_mclinuxface@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:00 JST Kyle Davis

     in reply to

     • ThunderComplex
     • csolisr

     @csolisr @ThunderComplex probably very little seeing that it was forked before the license change.

     That’s how #OpenSearch came from Elasticsearch when similar shenanigans were pulled. They are on their own from this point forward.

     (I haven’t played with KeyDB, but the other multithreaded Redis clones or forks substantially changed the dynamics of use, so it might not be a drop in replacement)

   • Embed this notice
     Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸 (natanox@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:04 JST Natasha Nox 🇺🇦🇵🇸

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • ThunderComplex

     @ThunderComplex @linux_mclinuxface What that tells me is that the new Redis fork everyone will do just has to be one commit earlier than the license, lol. Fuck them, they can't retroactively apply the new license on the older codebase (I hope…?).

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ThunderComplex (thundercomplex@musicians.today)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:05 JST ThunderComplex

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis

     @linux_mclinuxface Yeah I noticed that, despite being relatively short, it's really hard to comprehend. It definitely goes over my head.

   • Embed this notice
     clacke (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:07 JST clacke

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • lucasmz ∞

     @lucasmz Redis was under a permissive Open Source license that doesn't require recipients of code or binaries to provide it under the same terms to their recipients, it's not Copyleft.

     The company received code from contributors under these terms and can do mostly what they like, redistribute derivatives under any terms, they're only required to retain copyright notices.

     At a first glance at the PR I'm not sure they even followed that minimal requirement of retaining copyright notices. Some comments are protesting that they didn't.

     @linux_mclinuxface

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:09 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • Marty Fouts
     • lucasmz ∞

     @MartyFouts @codefolio @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface If your claim were true, there is no way Google or any big company would even touch licenses like BSD. The risk of rug-pull would be astronomical. Clearly they deem it not a risk. I'm not sure where you're getting your misinformation.

     Like most of the GPL, section 8 is setting forth conditions under which the permissions are granted. Permissive licenses don't have any conditions beyond very basic stuff like inclusion of the copyright notice.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:10 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • lucasmz ∞

     @dalias @codefolio @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface Any license can be revoked. There’s nothing special about open source except that the GPL explicitly waivers that right under most circumstances. No other license does. If you can’t legally revoke a license once granted then section 8 of the GPL would be unenforceable. There is nothing nasty or FUD about correctly stating how copyright law works.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:11 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • Marty Fouts
     • lucasmz ∞

     @MartyFouts @codefolio @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface They cannot do that and I'm not clear what your motive in claiming that is but it sounds like really nasty anti-FOSS FUD.

   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:12 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • lucasmz ∞

     @dalias @codefolio @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface Yes. That is what I said in parentheses. I have spoken about both what can be done to licenses and what they have done in this exchange and perhaps I could have been clearer about which was which. They have changed the terms of the license going forward. They could legally revoke existing licenses, which is problematic but legal. They have not done that. Clear now?

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:13 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • Marty Fouts
     • lucasmz ∞

     @MartyFouts @codefolio @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface They are not revoking anything. They are declining to license new derived works under the same license as the old ones.

   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:14 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Noah Gibbs
     • Kyle Davis
     • lucasmz ∞

     @codefolio @dalias @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface Half right. They are only revoking going forward. (Technically not a revocation but a change of terms.) See the GPL for an example of a license that explicitly states conditions for revoking existing licenses. See the history of the GPL for an example of a revoked license leading to it.

   • Embed this notice
     Noah Gibbs (codefolio@ruby.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:15 JST Noah Gibbs

     in reply to

     • Rich Felker
     • Kyle Davis
     • Marty Fouts
     • lucasmz ∞

     @dalias @MartyFouts @lucasmz @linux_mclinuxface

     This. If you have a copy of old OSS Redis, including its source code, that's still fully usable under the old terms.

     What they're doing is only licensing *new* code under the new bad terms. Which is 100% legal, yeah.

   • Embed this notice
     David (sa7dse@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:30 JST David

     in reply to

     • Schenkl 🏳️‍🌈
     • Kyle Davis
     • Mr.P

     @schenklklopfer @linux_mclinuxface @Mr_Poeschl KeyDB seems to be a popular fork, is still under BSD license and comes with multithreading.

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Schenkl 🏳️‍🌈 (schenklklopfer@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:32 JST Schenkl 🏳️‍🌈

     in reply to

     • Kyle Davis
     • Mr.P

     @linux_mclinuxface @Mr_Poeschl is there a Fork yet?

   • Embed this notice
     David (sa7dse@chaos.social)'s status on Friday, 22-Mar-2024 15:32:37 JST David

     in reply to

     • Schenkl 🏳️‍🌈
     • Kyle Davis
     • Mr.P

     @schenklklopfer @linux_mclinuxface @Mr_Poeschl and KeyDB is going to remain under BSD license: https://github.com/Snapchat/KeyDB/issues/798

     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Kyle Davis (linux_mclinuxface@fosstodon.org)'s status on Sunday, 24-Mar-2024 16:39:53 JST Kyle Davis

     in reply to

     From one of the non-Redis Inc leadership team members before the license change:

     https://github.com/madolson/placeholderkv