Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:14 JST feld

   in reply to

   • Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:
   • Matt "msw" Wilson
   • Stefano Zacchiroli
   @msw @jwildeboer @zacchiro With BSD/MIT you still retain copyright. With that CLA garbage you have to give that up too and then they can even change the license so it might as well have been BSD/MIT in the first place.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt "msw" Wilson (msw@mstdn.social)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:16 JST Matt "msw" Wilson

     in reply to

     • Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:
     • Stefano Zacchiroli

     @jwildeboer @zacchiro indeed, it has not been BSD for some time, which is why Valkey exists.

     My only point is that too often I see outrage from contributors who submitted code under MIT or BSD terms, perhaps following inbound=outbound licensing practices for a project, when their contributions are “taken” and made proprietary through a new restrictive license.

     They don’t realize they gave _all_ permission to do that with their choice of license.

   • Embed this notice
     Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: (jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:17 JST Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:

     in reply to

     • Matt "msw" Wilson
     • Stefano Zacchiroli

     @msw @zacchiro From the license.txt file:

     "Starting with Redis 8, Redis Open Source is moving to a tri-licensing model with all new Redis code contributions governed by the updated Redis Software Grant and Contributor License Agreement.
     After this release, contributions are subject to your choice of: (a) the Redis Source Available License v2 (RSALv2);or (b) the Server Side Public License v1 (SSPLv1); or (c) the GNU Affero General Public License v3 (AGPLv3)."

     So no more BSD or MIT, AFAICS.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt "msw" Wilson (msw@mstdn.social)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:18 JST Matt "msw" Wilson

     in reply to

     • Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:
     • Stefano Zacchiroli

     @zacchiro @jwildeboer I came here to say this. You don’t have to agree to the other licenses as a contributor. You just have to license your contribution in a way that Redis has the rights needed to use them as sub-licenses.

     Contributors that license their contributions under MIT or BSD should not find this objectionable. Contributors that mindfully choose AGPLv3 to advance software freedom likely object.

     But sadly few contributors make that mindful choice.

   • Embed this notice
     Stefano Zacchiroli (zacchiro@mastodon.xyz)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:20 JST Stefano Zacchiroli

     in reply to

     • Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:

     @jwildeboer Amen. Also, it's much worse than just having to agree to those licenses. The #Redis contributor agreement grants the company a sublicense right, making de facto the AGPL ineffective against them.

   • Embed this notice
     Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: (jwildeboer@social.wildeboer.net)'s status on Saturday, 03-May-2025 05:13:21 JST Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange:

     While I also welcome #Redis offering their code under the #AGPLv3 license, I do note that developers still have to agree to three licenses, of which 2 are not open source, to get their contributions accepted and included upstream. https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md