@p
> I essentially took :rms:'s word for it that it was a somewhat non-committal GPL designed to be compatible enough with BSD/MIT that code could be linked, so I never had too much of a use for it.

Reminds me that I hate how :rms: and his crowd do a lot of manifestos and barely any documentation to the point of apparently confusing the two…

LGPL from what I gathered over the years is a copyleft license (so taking source code back is guaranteed), but within the limits of your software, so you typically avoid the cross-software license compatibility issues that you'd get with the GPL due to it considering everything linked as part of the same whole.

So for Redict it means you should be able to just use it as before even with linking to it, but Redict itself is protected. And as there's no copyright assignment, any relicensing would require consent of the community.

> Apparently Redict went out of its way to break API compatibility by renaming everything

Nah, there's still a compatibility with the redis API (IIRC even ABI) so it's a drop-in. And AFAIK the renames where done to avoid trademark issues (which given the rug-pull of redis makes sense to avoid).