Slashdot Mirror
Redis Changes Its Open Source License -- Again (zdnet.com)
"Redis Labs is dropping its Commons Clause license in favor of its new 'available-source' license: Redis Source Available License (RSAL)," reports ZDNet -- adding "This is not an open-source license."
Redis Labs had used Commons Clause on top of the open-source Apache License to protect its rights to modules added to its 3-Clause-BSD-licensed Redis, the popular open-source in-memory data structure store. But, as Manish Gupta, Redis Labs' CMO, explained, "It didn't work. Confusion reigned over whether or not the modules were open source. They're not open-source." So, although it hadn't wanted to create a new license, that's what Redis Labs ended up doing....
The RSAL grants, Gupta said, equivalent rights to permissive open-source licenses for the vast majority of users. With the RSAL, developers can: Use the software; modify the source code; integrate it with an application; and use, distribute, support, or sell their application. But -- and this is big -- the RSAL forbids you from using any application built with these modules in a database, a caching engine, a stream processing engine, a search engine, an indexing engine, or a machine learning/artificial intelligence serving engine. In short, all the ways that Redis Labs makes money from Redis. Gupta wants to make it perfectly clear: "We're not calling it open source. It's not."
Earlier this month the Open Source Initiative had reaffirmed its commitment to open source's original definition, adding "There is no trust in a world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source, and without trust there is no community, no collaboration, and no innovation."
And earlier this week on Twitter a Red Hat open-source evangelist said they wondered whether Redis was just "clueless. There are a lot of folks entering #opensource today who are unwilling to do the research and reading, and assume that these are all new problems."
The RSAL grants, Gupta said, equivalent rights to permissive open-source licenses for the vast majority of users. With the RSAL, developers can: Use the software; modify the source code; integrate it with an application; and use, distribute, support, or sell their application. But -- and this is big -- the RSAL forbids you from using any application built with these modules in a database, a caching engine, a stream processing engine, a search engine, an indexing engine, or a machine learning/artificial intelligence serving engine. In short, all the ways that Redis Labs makes money from Redis. Gupta wants to make it perfectly clear: "We're not calling it open source. It's not."
Earlier this month the Open Source Initiative had reaffirmed its commitment to open source's original definition, adding "There is no trust in a world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source, and without trust there is no community, no collaboration, and no innovation."
And earlier this week on Twitter a Red Hat open-source evangelist said they wondered whether Redis was just "clueless. There are a lot of folks entering #opensource today who are unwilling to do the research and reading, and assume that these are all new problems."
This will be the thing that causes Redis to lose whatever prominent marketshare it currently has.
APR has direct support for Redis. Time for it to be removed ?
What/Who is Redis, what do they do, and why should we care?
no more liesense? cease fire stand down.. don't click until you see the integrity light go back on..
Does anyone know any neat Redis alternatives/forks?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
don't touch that code even with a 10 meter pole !
aaaaaaa
Fork it hard and right before the license change. :)
aaaaaaa
good bye redis.. they just said, this tool isn't open-source. You can see the source. But not use it in any case other than a hobbyist (this is what a business will see).
Earlier this month the Open Source Initiative had reaffirmed its commitment to open source's original definition, adding "There is no trust in a world where anyone can invent their own definition for open source
Uh, bullshit. Open Source means you can see the source. That's all it means. That's why we have all these various Open Source licenses, and also why Free Software is different from Open Source. When you don't invent the term, which was provably in use before the leading lights of the OSI claimed to have coined it, you don't get to define it.
Redis IS Open Source. It is NOT Free Software. Equivocating the two is corporate whoredom.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know all of those improvements and bug fixes you got from the open source community? You now need to pay those people for them if you are using them in your commercial product. Open up that checkbook, asshats.
> provably in use before the leading lights of the OSI claimed to have coined it
Do you have any shred of evidence whatsoever that the term was in use prior to the February 1998 meeting, or are you talking out of your butt?
BTW OSI has trademarks for various "Open Source *", terms so they *do* get to define it, legally.
Do you have any shred of evidence whatsoever that the term was in use prior to the February 1998 meeting, or are you talking out of your butt?
Solid Evidence is located here.
BTW OSI has trademarks for various "Open Source *", terms so they *do* get to define it, legally.
No, no they do NOT. They have trademark on "Open Source Initiative" but they declined to attempt to register "Open Source" when they registered "Open Source Initiative" on the advice of their legal counsel. We don't know on what grounds their legal counsel told them not to do it, and they don't actually believe in Openness so they haven't told us. We only know that their counsel told them not to, because they told us THAT much.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up. Someone choosing to preserve their attorney-client privilege does not mean "they don't actually believe in Openness".
But at least you made it blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder about OSI.
Oh, for fuck's sake, grow up. Someone choosing to preserve their attorney-client privilege does not mean "they don't actually believe in Openness".
In this case, it absolutely does. It's also legally relevant, and here's why. Members of the OSI have claimed publicly that it was a mistake to heed their counsel in that regard, and that they should have filed for a trademark on "Open Source", because it probably would have been granted (their words, or at least, the gist.) In fact, they made those claims here on Slashdot. However, they are the ones who hold the information about the truth of those claims. One can't go to their attorney to find out (obviously) so we depend on them to honestly and accurately share that information, or at least to make honest and accurate claims about it. The only way to prove whether they're being honest and accurate is to share the basis upon which their counsel advised them against applying for that copyright when they were applying for other copyrights.
There's also another relevant reason, which has to do with iconography. The OSI's logos at the time were designed in such a way that it made it look like they had a copyright on "Open Source" and not just "Open Source Initiative" based on where the copyright registration symbol was placed — next to the word "Source" and not the word "Initiative". That is deceptive advertising.
But at least you made it blindingly obvious that you have a huge chip on your shoulder about OSI.
I'm both personally offended by lies, and generally take exception to the OSI's ongoing assault on Free Software through their attempts to equivocate it with Open Source when the two are fundamentally different.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So you ignore all the proof he showed you, and still come to that conclusion?
You are trying to rewrite history. And that's a bad thing. Drinkypoo has been fighting the good fight for over a decade. What have you done? He's researched the subject thoroughly and has first hand experience by being in the trenches with most of the people you call idols.
So fuck off, look at his proof, and stop denying the facts.
Thanks for the link and your research.
You have, however, misrepresented the statement Bruce Perens made. This unfortunate fact turns your work from useful to bullshit. I'm not sure why you would put in all that time, then produce a lie. You could have lied without doing ANY research.
Bruce's statement is consistent with everyone else's. Bruce, ESR, Christine Peterson, et all discussed it and agreed upon that term. *Bruce then took the responsibility for drafting and maintaining a definition based upon the Debian document.* Perens never claimed to have originally coined the term, and your claim that he did is crap. Not only is it crap, but it's OBVIOUS bullshit, to anyone and everyone who has a basic grasp of the English language. What a waste of time and valuable research.
Your attempt to present it as of there is disagreement between the people involved in similarly bull. Neither Perens, nor ESR, not Stallman, nor any other person claims to have originated the term, only to have discussed ans agreed to it at the meeting with Christine Peterson, where she says she brought it up. Nobody disagrees with that. Trying to portray it as an argument between the people who were present is disingenuous.
You did find a single instance of someone talking about source code that is open; a subject line using the words "open" and "source code" together. That is interesting. It would be more interesting if it weren't buried in bullshit. It would have been more interesting if they said "open source software", but they didn't.
It would also be more interesting had they used the combined term "open source" as a noun. They used the noun phrase "source code" with the adjective "open", which may seem like a subtle difference. There is a world of difference between mentioning your tube and naming something You Tube, though.
You've misrepresented what Bruce said. He never claimed to have coined the term. He stated, correctly, that he took responsibility for putting together a definition document for the new term based on the Debian document. That is an undisputable fact. You've falsely misrepresented the different aspects of the story related by the people present as if they were fighting about it. That isn't the case. What a waste of your time and ours.
Just about everyone makes a living through something proprietary. The only exceptions are those who give away all their creations, but attract patrons who are just happy that they exist. I can't think of one at the moment. Even Beethoven sold concerts and scores (and dedications?).
When their software is a person's only chance for revenue, it's entirely understandable that these ISVs don't adopt a licence that totally gives it away. Hopefully in a way that retains as many of the benefits of open software as possible. There's no such pressure on companies that make their money through hardware or ads or services.
Just discovered this one on Wikipedia, the oldest citation yet: Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, cited as using the term all the way back in 1985 . (Try at about 13 minutes and 50 seconds.) Thanks, NJB!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My post post might have been more clear if I had said "name" rather than "noun phrase".
"Source code" is the name of a specific thing.
There is a huge difference between spelling a url "h t t p colon slash slash ..." versus using "colonslash.org" as the name of a particular thing.
Neither Peterson nor anyone else claims to have been first to the words "open" and "source". It is generally believed they *named* something "open source".
I think your post would have been more credible if you had shown any understanding that a trademark and copyright are not the same thing. In particular, you need to take active steps to defend against violations of a registered trademark or you may lose it.
I would guess the reason they were advised against registering "open source" as a trademark is that they would have had to be continually defending it when used incorrectly, plus they wanted the term to become a widely used term.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
To summarize my thoughts on the matter:
If you just point out the CompuServe post, you've shown the term was in use prior to the meeting. You win.
If instead you make bullshit statements like saying Bruce claims to have coined the term, anyone reading that will likely see that you are full of shit and stop reading before they even get to see the CompuServe link. You lose the argument because your evidence is never seen and you just look like an asshole.