Programming

17416 readers

102 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

304

Redis is no longer OSS (fosstodon.org)

submitted 7 months ago by mesamunefire@lemmy.world to c/programming@programming.dev

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] baatliwala@lemmy.world 44 points 7 months ago (3 children)

From what I've understood SSPL is a ridiculously ambiguous license, it's extreme copyleft. It's not just "open source the tooling you use to host the software", it can also be interpreted to mean "open source all the hardware and firmware you use to host the software". No one wants to risk going to court for that so corporate wants to use SSPL licensed software.

AGPL is the best license you can go for IMO.

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The ambiguity is a valid concern. Hopefully the next version addresses this a bit better. This being said mega corps will call anything they can’t abuse for profit “extreme”. So if they think it’s extreme that just means we are on the right track.

[–] pkill@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

lmao imagine allowing to run your software only on RISC-V boxes basically, pretty based but also a shoot in the foot in terms of acquiring any major funding

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

To be fair the license is not meant to cause this and has never been enforced like this. The license was written for software tooling.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

Huh I interpreted it as "everything involved with deployment" so connecting services, scripts, parts the OS that touch it, and an configurations.

I guess that is the ambiguity you mentioned

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Regardless of whether it is too strong or too ambiguous, it is absolutely an open source license regardless of whether the OSI and/or FSF approve of it.