I believe you misunderstand how licensing works. For instance, BSD license allows to always switch, but this didn't stop Amazon from using many years of my work to make a lot of money, even if the license was later switched. This is licensing 101. You also have direct experience with it.
There are no plans for any other license switch in the future, but anyway if for 10 years Redis gets released with the AGPL, and later is released with the Paperino License, anyway 10 years of contributions remain in the AGPL license.
I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make.
Of course the BSD license is OK, and it's OK to incorporate a BSD licensed work in many other works using whatever terms you wish for the whole. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about non-reciprocal license obligations.
He's saying something different, @antirez.bsky.social. That by taking copyright assignment, Redis Inc puts themselves at a different playing field than contributors to Redis, because they can circumvent the obligations of the AGPL (and only Redis Inc can). That's true!
AGPLv3, the “call your lawyer” license. I wonder how Redis Labs will treat users of Redis under AGPL building proprietary software using Redis as infra only. Minio is one example of a project that has become hostile to these users. Where SSPL seems to be more explicit about competing services.
Comments
Of course not, as contributors are required to grant a separate license that forgives those obligations.
https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md
Of course the BSD license is OK, and it's OK to incorporate a BSD licensed work in many other works using whatever terms you wish for the whole. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about non-reciprocal license obligations.
But if I give a contribution to the project under AGPLv3 terms, that comes with additional obligations that the project owner won't agree to.
https://archlinux.org/news/valkey-to-replace-redis-in-the-extra-repository/