In practice, nothing changes for the Redis developer community who will continue to enjoy permissive licensing under the dual license. At the same time, all the Redis client libraries under the responsibility of Redis will remain open source licensed. Redis will continue to support its vast partner ecosystem โ including managed service providers and system integrators โ with exclusive access to all future releases, updates, and features developed and delivered by Redis through its Partner Program. There is no change for existing Redis Enterprise customers.
Seems this currently touches only cloud "resellers" of redis
FOSS projects must not discriminate the use of the project. Meaning no matter you host it for internal use, or resell the project as a service, they shall be treated the same with the same rights.
God forbid giant companies like Microsoft and Amazon should have to contribute to the development of open source software they massively profit off of.
With SSPLv1, does that mean one can sell redis hosting as long as everything used to manage it is open source? It says it's based on AGPL. So if say digitalocean open sourced all their api's and UI they could still offer managed redis. It seems like the answer is yes but then the blog post also says
Under the new license, cloud service providers hosting Redis offerings will no longer be permitted to use the source code of Redis free of charge.
The ostensible point is to prevent resellers from platforming your code. SSPL is an answer to, say, AWS offering your product much cheaper than you can. RSAL seems to be Redis spinning their own SSPL, BSL, whatever bullshit license because theyโre not happy with the existing faux open source cloud licenses that prevent platforming.
There really isnโt a good way to handle this from an open source perspective. Cloud majors can and will undercut the fuck out of anyone to establish dominance. Ideally youโre providing a better support experience or working with them (until they decide to kneecap you) to maintain your business. Previously Redis had an paid tier that had functionality not available at the OSS level. I think thatโs also legit.
I personally loathe the compliance issues these random shitty fucking licenses throw and donโt think trying to claw back business from majors is the right approach. The little guy is going to follow the path of least resistance which means youโve made your software enterprise only.
MIT and BSD 2 are basically the same thing. BSD 3 extends BSD 2 with a limitation on using contributors to promote without permission. The BSD family is not copyleft.