Except they didn’t relicence to AGPL initially, they switched to dual licensing under the RSALv2 (a proprietary licence) and SSPLv1 (a non open source, non-free licence). So essentially they made it proprietary, that’s what everyone was annoyed about. If they went straight to AGPL I’m sure there would’ve been some people who were annoyed, but most developers would understand why and I doubt there would have been the valkey fork.
Hasnep
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
Cake day: March 15th, 2021
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Guix! Nah just kidding, it’s gotta be the snowflake one
62·1 year agoI don’t mean to be that guy, but if you like your desktop a certain way and want to easily configure it you might want to look into Nix and home-manager, it’s difficult to get started but once you have a config that works it lets you set up your whole OS and desktop and lots of apps.
The difference with llvm is that nobody is selling a hosted llvm as a service, nobody is making money off llvm without contributing back (directly, I know a bunch of companies use llvm to make a product that makes money).
Redis clearly thinks that using the BSD licence was a mistake. I agree with you, using BSD attracted more people/companies to use it than if they had chosen AGPL, that’s the trade-off you make when choosing a copyleft licence.
I think I agree with you on a lot of this, let me know if this is a fair summary of your argument:
That seems pretty reasonable to me, let me know if I made any mistakes summarising your point.
The caveat I would add to that is that the project shouldn’t complain about freeloaders if they choose a licence that explicitly allows freeloading. They chose a permissive licence for its advantages but they won’t accept the consequences that come with that decision.