304
Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

${CORPORATION} has profited off of Redis without giving much back (...)

I don't understand this blend of comment.

If you purposely release your work as something anyone in the world is free to use and change to adapt to their own personal needs without any expectation of retribution or compensation, why are you complaining that people are using your work without any retribution or compensation?

More to the point, why are you singling out specific adopters while leaving out the bulk of your community?

It makes absolutely no sense at all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    There's generally an understanding (the GPL folks think it's naive -- and this makes their case) that if you use open source software you should give back to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    And yet fuck all people do. Ever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Absolutely not true. I know this is just my experience, but I've worked with plenty of devs who've contributed prs and/or donations back to OSS projects in the past, and all my former employers have opensourced at least some of their software

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The GPL people are naive too because GPL doesn't always prevent it either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It does, AGPL for servers, GPL for applications... If you make changes they have to be made available or you're breaking the law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You only have to give back if yours literally redistributing a modified version of the thing.

    If you use the software without modifying it directly (such as building on top of it, or building something that uses it), then that's allowed.

    Also if you make use of the software commercially, without necessarily distributing it, then that's also allowed. For example, Google could (I think they actually already do) modify the Linux kernel, and use it all across their company internally. They don't have to give back, since they don't distribute it.

    And last, if you don't modify the software but charge people using it, that's completely allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    If you use the software without modifying it directly (such as building on top of it, or building something that uses it), then that's allowed.

    (IANAL)

    Not in the case of AGPL (use over the network and IPC counts as distribution -- presumably proxying the request is insufficient to disable this clause) and even in the case of GPL that's a very problematic position to put yourself on. You're basically talking about invoking a foreign process from your primary process to avoid licensing constraints and that comes with a lot of limitations as to what you can do.

    You can modify the GPL program to support more things via IPC but then if that program needs to touch a customer's computer, you have to contribute at the very least those notifications and any related improvements you made to make that possible or any new feature which makes more sense to be in the tool you're calling than your tool building on top.

    And last, if you don't modify the software but charge people using it, that's completely allowed.

    Yes, but who's paying for that? If it's a server hosting company, they'll pay the hardware rental fee, fair enough. However, you can't reasonably sell that software itself, people will just build it themselves.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent