It was wise of @drewdevault to host redict (redis fork) on @Codeberg to maintain workflow parity with github and avoid any perceived conflicts of interest¹.
I wondered why LGPL and not of AGPL², which is also explained nicely: "but we want to make it as easy as possible for users to comply with the Redict license and we do not see any reason to discourage cloud providers from making use of Redict."
@shom when I make the software a lesser version of GPL so that cloud providers will notice me, senpai. It's the software equivalent of underbidding your wage or working conditions so that you get the job.
@immibis ah okay, yeah I agree on principle for sure but not on existing projects that are already in use by the cloud providers. If redict was licensed as AGPL (which is what I would have thought) then none of the existing cloud companies would likely use redict. So none of the contributions they make would never make it out as FOSS.
1/2
@immibis But in this case, with LGPL they can/might switch to redict and could continue contributing. I'm using can/might/could to illustrate that it's a possible not guaranteed but AGPL would be a guaranteed no.
So in this specific case @drewdevault's choice gives a better shot for contributions from cloud providers to land on @Codeberg than AGPL hosted on sourcehut.
@shom@immibis@Codeberg even as a user of AGPL for several of my own projects I recognize that it is a pain in the ass to comply with, especially for projects that don't have a web interface.
@shom@immibis@Codeberg moreover, it is a stronger political rejection of RedisLab's re-licensing move if the license of Redict does not eliminate any use-cases, such that it can quickly and effectively make the now-proprietary upstream software irrelevant.
@drewdevault @immibis@Codeberg to add to that: drop-in replacement isn't just technical, it's also license. This makes redict a true drop-in replacement.
Add comment