undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgadders2y ago0 comments

>>Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google

Employees on their own time, or paid to do it?

So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

drewdevault2y ago· 2 in thread

>So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay?

That's the pitch of the license, essentially, but in practice the SSPL is an utter nightmare to comply with (to the point of being deliberate) and it mainly exists to put a veneer of open source on a proprietary product. In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd, which is the actual point of the license in the end.

umanwizard2y ago

> In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd

Isn’t this exactly what the person you’re replying to was saying?

drewdevault2y ago

Yes, I realize I worded this poorly. I emphasized this point because this is what makes it non-free/not meet the Open Source Definition; you cannot retain exclusive right to commercialization. But I realize that was not actually something the parent commenter was asking about.

xorcist2y ago

That's what many people seem to think, but it has not been legally challenged yet. We won't know for sure until Google or AWS decides to test the limits, in your jurisdiction.

You should probably ask Redis, Inc. what their intention is. Keep in mind, though, the run the risk of being re-rug-pulled. They have changed the license once and they can do it again.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse