"Beginning today, all future versions of Redis will be released with source-available licenses. Starting with Redis 7.4, Redis will be dual-licensed under the Redis Source Available License (RSALv2) and Server Side Public License (SSPLv1). Consequently, Redis will no longer be distributed under the three-clause Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD)."
From my PoV, it's certainly a license that's preferable to that of BSD or MIT. There's a solid reasoning behind this HERE.
After all, even Tanenbaum himself was surprised to discover that MINIX is the most ubiquitous of all operating systems:
> "I guess that makes MINIX the most widely used computer operating system in the world, even more than Windows, Linux, or MacOS."
The SSPL being akin to that of the AGPL avoids that sort of dreadful situation, ensuring protections for the end users that not even the GPL affords them where #SaaS is concerned ;)
MongoDB's SSPL (Server Side Public License) sounds like an extremely strong copyleft form of free software license. It sounds like MongoDB took the AGPL and made it much stronger.
Respected "open source" groups have rejected MongoDB's copyleft open source free software license, such as the OSI, RedHat, and Debian.
The criticism of the SSPL do not seem to recognize that it is a copyleft free software license. Is the OSI really a protector of copyleft free software? The politics of these organizations seem to leaning anarcho-capitalist "libertarian".
I don't believe the SSPL will harm any specific field of endeavor. Databases are used in all fields of endeavor. They are usually one of many provided cloud computing services. Cloud computing services are used in most every field of endeavor these days. Even my toothbrush has a cloud database.
By rejecting the SSPL, the OSI, RedHat, Debian have appeared to have ignored the copyleft freedoms that the SSPL guarantees.
Despite www.dnp.org claiming that "DNP3 is an open and public protocol," it seems that the specification is only available to members and membership costs US$400 for an individual. Not really the definition of "open" that I'm used to.
#Paywalling access to standards isn't open - compared to that the anti-competitive #SSPL#license is open despite being designed to make it impossible to do any commercial offering with it (it's worse than #AGPLv3)...
I could at least understand if they said "Available for Licensing under #FRAND terms" if everyone gets to pay the same flat fee...
The only one who claims that MongoDB/SSPL is open source is a single person who is #openwashing proprietary software using his website and his GitHub repo with 1 star. Just ignore it.
The old "we don't want competitors to undercut us" thing is such a bad justification for switching to non Open Source licenses (e.g. Elastic, Hashicorp…). You can absolutely keep some features in proprietary extensions and make them available to enterprise clients while keeping the main software OSS.
Cluster mode, SSO, SCIM, audit logs, account impersonation, integrations with proprietary software, the list goes on and on. And these features are usually hard to replicate, good for you.
The SSPL is an #AGPL license modified to prohibit competition for eternity.
The BSL is a license that turns into a #GPL2 compatible license within at most 4 years and which the creators, @mariadb, created to ensure their proprietary extensions would be as close to OSS as possible and guaranteed to eventually become full OSS.
The entire city of #Yellowknife is being evacuated. This is unprecedented and terrifying.
And thousands of citizens aren’t aware because Meta continues to block news in the country.
This is what happens when citizens are convinced to use an American multinational corporation as their community’s primary communications channel — a corporation that couldn’t give two shits about anything except its “fiduciary duty” to shareholders.
It's way more complex but it allows for some consistent yet realistic approaches.
I.e. one can acknowledge that #grsecurity and #RedHat showed the need for stronger #Copyleft whilst also noting that neither #GPLv3 nor #AGPLv3 nor #SSPL doesn't adress that problem and instead demand illegal actions to comply [i.e. surrendering all patents] which ignore the reality of #tech.
I love when a company who built their whole business on top of open source developed by others (Linux, Ruby, Go, etc) decry "vendors who take advantage of pure OSS models, and the community work on OSS projects, for their own commercial goals" switch to a proprietary license rather than a copyleft that actually codifies the culture of reciprocal sharing.
I.e. "Any used versions - released as part of a product or on their own - must have their #SourceCode released in public for everyone to access and reproducably build with no form of barriers!"
@geerlingguy Not that I doubt that companies want to make #money and that they want to enshure that no #GAFAM - espechally #Amazon - just yoinks their code and make a better #SaaS out of it whilst contributing 0 $ or code back into the project.
I'm not just talking about "published source" like #Tarsnap's client, but also #AGPLv3 and #SSPL which are basically designed to prevent competiton - #GAFAM or not - from making any commercial product.