They've kept a copy of it in the repository, and it looks like they left the BSD header in files where the copyright holder's name was an external contributor.
They also mention that the license change only applies to future changes, not existing code - so it doesn't seem like there's any copyright infringement happening here, unless I'm missing something.
instead, they need to license their new contributions under the new license, which will effectively make the combined blob of code only available under the new license.
doesn't change what they're doing, but it's just disrespectful, incorrect and a breach of everyone else's copyright to remove the existing license and headers.
A more recent development of interest:
Redict is an independent, copyleft fork of Redis
Update: it looks like KeyDB is a good one.
IANAL, but AFAICT the BASL is not open-source, but it is _eventually_-open-source is in the source will automatically transition to being open source (GPL v2 or compatible... not sure if either BSD or AGPL work).
But if you are going to go source available, license proliferation is still a problem, please try to maintain sanity.
I have never seen anyone refer to it as "BASL".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39789986
I hope the community doesn't fracture too much and that at least one of possibly many forks gets enough momentum to be long-term sustainable.
This kills it.
AGPL, I could go with. AGPL/proprietary dual licensing works well. There's an open ecosystem and a closed one.
Non-free is a non-starter. It's no longer GPL-compatible. EVERY project under the GPL using redis now has a potential legal liability from (what's looking like) a sleazeball company.
Now I need to figure out if I should move to a fork or switch to a different package. Fortunately, I have a nice key-value store abstraction, so it's easy to switch.
I expect distributions like Debian, and Ubuntu by proxy, will move away from having a redis .deb as well.
The damnable thing here is the dishonest copy: "In practice, nothing changes for the Redis developer community who will continue to enjoy permissive licensing under the dual license."
What about this change indicates that? This sounds like fearmongering, the new licenses really shouldn't affect this use case?
most Linux distributions take free software/open source pretty seriously, and will not ship random proprietary things (at least) as part of the main distribution.
the new redis license is clearly not open source/free software, and so new versions won't be in Debian or Fedora etc. since it's a network daemon, no one is going to want to keep an ancient unsupported version and I doubt any distribution packager will want to maintain a fork, and so redis will be removed and at best a maintained fork will replace it.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the...
The new licensing scheme effectively excludes redis from most of the open ecosystem, by cascading network effects from things like this. In this case, if you're building a package, if you pick redis, you've excluded yourself from distribution in many major distros.
Ditto for many other similar effects.
It's not fear-mongering. It's following laws and policies.
