Redis creator Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez) reversed the previous "Commons Clause" licensing for Redis modules, returning them to the open-source AGPL license. He acknowledged the community's negative reaction to the Commons Clause, recognizing its chilling effect on the ecosystem and its incompatibility with the open-source ethos. While some modules will remain proprietary under a commercial license offered by Redis Labs, the core Redis project and many popular modules are now fully open source again, fostering broader community involvement and collaboration.
Salvatore Sanfilippo, the original creator and primary maintainer of the popular in-memory data structure store Redis, has announced in a blog post titled "Redis is open source again" that certain Redis modules are reverting to the open-source BSD license. This decision follows a period where these modules were offered under the Commons Clause license, a more restrictive license that prohibited selling the software as a standalone offering. Specifically, the modules returning to the BSD license are Redis Stack, RedisJSON, RedisTimeSeries, RedisBloom, and RedisGraph. Sanfilippo explains that the initial move to the Commons Clause was motivated by the desire to prevent cloud providers from directly monetizing these modules without contributing back to the open-source ecosystem, a practice sometimes referred to as "open-source stripping." However, he further elaborates that this approach proved more complex and potentially counterproductive than initially anticipated. He cites concerns about the legal interpretation of the Commons Clause and the difficulties it posed for users and potential contributors. The return to the BSD license signifies a return to a more permissive, community-driven approach, allowing broader usage and contribution to these modules. This change is expected to foster a more welcoming environment for developers and companies wishing to utilize and build upon these Redis extensions. Sanfilippo reaffirms his commitment to the open-source principles that guided the initial development of Redis and expresses hope that this change will reinvigorate the community around these specific modules. He maintains that the core Redis database will remain under the BSD license, as it always has been. This move represents a shift in licensing strategy solely for the aforementioned modules and does not affect the licensing of the core Redis database itself.
Summary of Comments ( 29 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859446
HN commenters largely celebrated Redis's return to a BSD license after the source-available RSAL license was applied to some modules. Many expressed relief and saw the move as a correction of a previous misstep, strengthening the project's community and future. Some questioned the rationale behind the initial licensing change, speculating about pressure from Redis Labs. Others discussed the nuances of open-source licensing and the implications for businesses built on Redis. A few questioned the practical impact of the reversion, given that the core remained BSD-licensed throughout. Several users highlighted the positive impact of community feedback in influencing this decision.
The Hacker News post "Redis is open source again" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859446) has a significant number of comments discussing Antirez's decision to revert Redis's source code licensing back to BSD after experimenting with the Commons Clause. The discussion revolves around several key themes.
Several commenters express relief and approval of the reversal, seeing the Commons Clause as harmful to the open-source ecosystem and celebrating the return to a more permissive license. They argue that the Commons Clause created unnecessary confusion and restrictions, hindering adoption and community contributions. Some express understanding for Antirez's initial exploration of alternative licensing, but ultimately welcome the return to BSD.
A recurring topic is the sustainability of open-source projects. Commenters discuss the challenges faced by maintainers in securing funding and balancing commercial interests with the principles of open source. Some acknowledge the pressures that led Antirez to consider the Commons Clause, while others propose alternative approaches to supporting open-source development, such as donations, dual licensing, or foundations.
There's a considerable discussion about the implications of the Commons Clause itself. Some commenters detail its specific restrictions and how it differs from traditional open-source licenses. Others debate its effectiveness in preventing cloud providers from offering managed services based on open-source software, questioning whether it truly achieves its intended purpose.
Several users share personal anecdotes about how the Commons Clause affected their use of Redis or other projects. These stories provide concrete examples of the practical challenges and limitations introduced by the license.
Some comments delve into the legal aspects of open source licensing, discussing the nuances of different licenses and the potential legal ramifications of using software under the Commons Clause.
Finally, a number of commenters express appreciation for Antirez's transparency and willingness to engage with the community throughout the licensing experiment. They commend his responsiveness to feedback and his commitment to finding a sustainable path for Redis.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixed reaction to the initial adoption and subsequent reversal of the Commons Clause. While there's understanding for the challenges faced by open-source maintainers, the prevailing sentiment seems to be relief and support for the return to a more permissive license. The discussion highlights the ongoing tension between open-source principles and the need for sustainable funding models.