this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
306 points (93.2% liked)

Programming

17354 readers
310 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] snaggen 142 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Didn't they switch to a license with stronger mechanisms to keep the source available? SSPL, is basically AGPL but have even stronger protection from large corperations to use the code in their data centers without contributing the changes back. This is basically a move to prevent AWS/Google/Microsoft/et al, from leaching on the contributors work without giving anything back.

Or am I reading this wrong?

EDIT: Note, that the Mastodon account is to an AWS employee.... so for him, this might be bad, since it no longer allows them to have their own internal fork without contributing back. Now, they will need to use a real for and maintain that them selves without leaching on the redis contributors.

[–] snaggen 84 points 7 months ago

I suggest an alternative title to this post: AWS employee is mad since Redis change license to prevent them from leaching

[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The restriction doesn't only apply to large corporations, it applies to everybody. It restricts what you can do with it so it breaks the fundamental freedoms that make up "FOSS". As an immediate result it will be removed from Fedora and Debian because they don't consider SSPL/RSAL to be FOSS:

https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/497

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

it breaks the fundamental freedoms that make up "FOSS"

Why? All the license says is that if you provide it as a service you must release the source code.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

It says that you must release all your source code, even the stuff that isn't covered by the license. From Wikipedia:

anyone who offers the functionality of SSPL-licensed software to third-parties as a service must release the entirety of their source code, including all software, APIs, and other software that would be required for a user to run an instance of the service themselves,

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Ah right. You could do a paid Redis service if you use the SSPL license though, right?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

That does seem to be the case. As long as any modifications to the source are publicly available. Which is pretty reasonable.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Weirdly OSI doesn't classify the SSPL as an open-source license because it doesn't guarantee "the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor", calling it a fauxpen license. I don't think the FSF has commented on the license, though I would be curious what they say about it.

I imagine they consider it to not give the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor, because providing the source of the entire stack needed to run the service you provide makes it impossible for users to host their service on stuff like AWS, since it is proprietary.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

I think checking the sponsors page for OSI will be informative.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I mean aws can suck it