Open Source

31200 readers

337 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

103

Redis switching to shared-source licensing model (redis.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Looks like there will be a need for another fork 😒

Looks like this will be it: https://codeberg.org/redict/redict

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's just marketing speak. Neither of the new licenses are OSI approved or FOSS.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Fauxpen source licenses (both of the "business" variety as well as the so-called "ethical" variety) have a fatal flaw: they prioritize the interests of the rightsholder over that of the community or the user. They are thus not so different than a standard proprietary EULA in concept, even if they are more permissive.

The reason this is an issue is because it inhibits code reuse. True free software licenses don't privilege the interests of the rightsholder any more than copyright law already does, because in the free software movement the developer is just a fellow user/member of the community. In other words, the GPL is the GPL is the GPL no matter who the rightsholder of the GPL code is. This means that code from many different rightsholders can be mixed together into a single program with no issue. Linux, of course, is probably the biggest example of this.