▲ 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
[–] 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