That's fair, but forking the FOSS version is also an adequate response.
replyYes. But so would financially contributing to the folks who did the work.
replyAWS literally did that. They paid for full time developers to contribute back to the redis code base, including core redis developers. If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.
reply> If you actually look at the redis code base the majority of it was written by people who never worked for redis.
replyThats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work
Permissive licenses don't protect against projects that decide to change the license when releasing a new version.
replyCopyleft protects against that as a general rule. However some projects that rely on copyleft require contributors to sign license agreements granting the project owners a more permissive license.
> Thats a really big deal, how did they legally managed to do the license change? I was under the impression that only works if the original owner is the doing most work
replyAlmost all of these license changes just change the terms under which _new_ work is contributed - which is why many of them have forks from the last OSI-licensed commit.
Sure.
replySince they're a for profit entity, they'll do whatever they think offers the best cost/benefit.
If those folks wanted money for their work, they should be charging a price for it.
replyThat’s what they eventually did, yes.
replyBut it’s ok to be voluntarily grateful for hard work.
> But it’s ok to be voluntarily grateful for hard work.
replyYou don't become a billionaire using that approach though.
I hate Amazon and monopolies, but I hate companies that think opensourcing their code as a marketing stunt gives them more rights or whatever. If you don't want to opensource, then don't?!
replyI can’t agree more, this “our software is open source but we have unwritten rules about how you can use it or we’ll attempt to shame you” attitude is absurd
replyAgree, as long as existing contributors agree the license should be changed, projects should feel free to do so, no harm, no foul.
reply