▲ 304 ▼ Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org) submitted 2 years ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev 111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 2 years ago (1 child) They could just use AGPL. Amazon would need to contribute back, but with no restrictions on who and how can run it. Current licence has a clause that prevents any providing of the software on the network. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] yildolw@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does that prevent my managed Mastodon instance host from providing Redis over the network to my Mastodon, or does that count as them providing Redis to themselves and then providing Mastodon to me? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The wording says "third-parties as a service", so as long as Redis isn't accessible by people outside your organization, it's fine. But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. Where does it say this? I can't see that in the SSPL permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the RSALv2: You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yildolw@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Does that prevent my managed Mastodon instance host from providing Redis over the network to my Mastodon, or does that count as them providing Redis to themselves and then providing Mastodon to me? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The wording says "third-parties as a service", so as long as Redis isn't accessible by people outside your organization, it's fine. But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. Where does it say this? I can't see that in the SSPL permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the RSALv2: You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) The wording says "third-parties as a service", so as long as Redis isn't accessible by people outside your organization, it's fine. But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. Where does it say this? I can't see that in the SSPL permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the RSALv2: You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbits@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) But paid Redis hosting wouldn't be allowed on the new license. Where does it say this? I can't see that in the SSPL permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the RSALv2: You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) It's in the RSALv2: You may not make the functionality of the Software or a Modified version available to third parties as a service permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbits@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 2 years ago That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable. permalink fedilink source parent