• snaggen@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

    • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • yildolw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • rbits@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            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

            • xthexder@l.sw0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              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

              • rbits@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

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

                • xthexder@l.sw0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

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

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

    • snaggen@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

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

      • rbits@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 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,

      • matcha_addict@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Fedora and debian support the corporate definitions of FOSS, so their opinions do not matter here.

        it applies to everybody

        I don’t think most of us want to offer services by hosting a service without contributing back the code. If they do, I am happy that it is a requirement that they give back. Only for-profit companies will have an issue with this.