Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux?
Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.
If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left.
It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is.
My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
>"I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? "
Your "That's what Open Source would allow", clearly implies anything but MIT / BSD license are not Open Source. Hence why people ask about Linux, which is Open Source but copy left aka non MIT / BSD.
>Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.
Your first sentence implies GPL are not open source, the relevance here is why the parent ask "do you think Linux as Open Source" or happy with it. And:
>My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.
Your happiness with Linux contradict with the first "quoted" sentence to what a lot of people think you meant.
Just in case, I am on the BSD / MIT camp but what you wrote create a lot of confusion.
I have answered a similar line of questioning before.
Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.
