Originally posted by QwertyChouskie
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork
Collapse
X
-
Not gonna use it, because of the BSD license, which basically turns you into a free laborer for corporations, while the GPLv3 forces them better into committing back.
There are many redis forks to choose from. This one definitely isn't it.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by hf_139 View PostNot gonna use it, because of the BSD license, which basically turns you into a free laborer for corporations, while the GPLv3 forces them better into committing back.
There are many redis forks to choose from. This one definitely isn't it.Last edited by peterdk; 29 March 2024, 11:54 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by peterdk View Post
Was Redis not always BSD?
If redis wants to go for a dual licensing and keep redis OpenSource while corporations have to pay if they want to modify it without publishing their changes, it is fine with me.
Qt went that way. And matrix-synapse recently changed to AGPLv3 while also offering dual licensing. Matrix got screwed over by government institutions who used and modified their product without publishing their changes.
OpenSource does NOT mean to offer free work for billion $$$ corporations and governments.
Stallman is and was always right about everything.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by sophisticles View PostFantastic development, I wish the Linux Foundation would adopt a BSD style license for more of their projects, including Linux.
There would've been 1000 Domain Specific Linuxes (DSLs - lol ) with "closed source" modifications, extensions and etc. So the core kernel would not have evolved nowhere near as much as it has.
Originally posted by sophisticles View PostWhere does anyone see anything that says this is no longer open source?
Due to the Redis licensing changes, Valkey is forking from Redis 7.2.4 and will maintain a BSD 3-clause license.
BSD is an open source license.
For the record, the Linux kernel does not exclusively need to be GPL:
Linux kernel licensing rules — The Linux Kernel documentation
https://docs.kernel.org/process/license-rules.html
The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.
Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.
So if the Linux Foundation, which manages the Linux kernel, doesn't have a problem with a BSD style license, why does anyone else?
Also, most people don't have a problem with BSD-style licenses. Most FOSS projects created nowadays are permissive licensed, according to some github stats I read somewhere somewhen. But of course no license is right for every project.
For MANY projects, viral copyleft licenses are necessary, if, not for anything else, at least to ensure compatibility.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment