upvote

points

by ranger_danger4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby gblargg1 hours ago|
next
[-]
It kind of reminds me of the equality of opportunity people versus the equality of outcome people. One sets the starting conditions for developers, the other the ending conditions for users.
reply
upvoteby brnt1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Since developers are a subset of users, it's actually possible to calculate which is more open.
reply
upvoteby gilrain4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> more open choice because it forces the project

A true morality must be based on consent, not coercion. Humanity may not be there yet, and therein lies the argument for force (and thus copyleft); but the ultimate goal should always be to reduce its necessity.

reply
upvoteby datakan4 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It’s not coercion. You’re free to not use it, or alternatively do what these folks did, write your own. Coercion would be forcing people to use it through some mechanism, which clearly isn’t possible with GPL.
reply
upvoteby skeledrew3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I see this, and the spiritual example that immediately comes to mind is that which is labeled as "crime". Would it be more moral that a murderer must first consent to being judged and sentenced, or that there is a system which automatically comes into play to hopefully deter but also punish it when it happens?
reply
upvoteby jcelerier4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Allowing closed-source to exist is always the less moral choice for many reasons (one example being ecological sustainability)
reply
upvoteby kennywinker4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Is this not the paradox of tolerance restated in different terms?

BSD license is unrestricted, it tolerates taking open source and closing it, thus always being at risk of things closing down.

GPL license doesn’t tolerate taking from open source and closing it, thus ensuring things stay open.

reply
upvoteby ranger_danger24 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The paradox clears itself up if you look at what tolerance actually is. It's simply not interfering with people's agency over themselves. Given that your right to self-agency doesn't entitle you to restrict others' self-agency, behavior that does try restricting others' agency is automatically not included in "tolerance."
reply
upvoteby KZerda3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The BSD license is why we have Valkey and not a purely closed-source Redis. It would have been much easier to perform the rugpull if Redis had initially been GPLed.
reply
upvoteby kennywinker3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
On top of badreligion42’s point, that both licenses allow forking just as easily - don’t you have the rugpull part backwards?

Afaik BSD licensed stuff can be re-licensed under any more closed licenses at any time, where as to re-license GPL, you need consent from every single contributor.

But i’m not familiar with the redis-valkey story so, maybe there is some nuance i am missing?

reply
upvoteby KZerda3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Redis started off as Free Software, but was switched to a source available license in version 7.4. The community promptly forked to Valkey, which is still under the BSD license. Since then, Redis shifted to AGPL 3, with contributor agreements, to try to ensure that they're the only ones who can attempt to commercialize Redis.
reply
upvoteby em-bee3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
AGPL makes commercializing harder only for people who fear the AGPL because they want to keep stuff for themselves. there is no problem commercializing it if you don't mind sharing all your connected code. the only benefit redis has is that they can integrate non-free code in their hosting service, while the rest of us could not. since it is their work, i think it is reasonable that they have an advantage. it does not reduce my freedom as a user. it only hinders AWS and other big players from crushing redis.
reply
upvoteby badreligion423 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
And how exactly did the BSD license make creating Valkey easier? GPL and BSD licenses both have the source in the open. Anyone creating a fork, can easily do so for either BSD or GPL licensed projects. Since Redis is a database, which the user won't be using a binary of, even using a fork of a supposedly GPL-licensed Redis would not require you to share your modifications with your user, same as BSD.
reply
upvoteby KZerda3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The BSD license made forking Valkey easier because it ensures that everyone has equal footing. The GPL, especially with contributor license agreements and the like, makes it much more easy for a single party to control the direction of the product. For another example of this happening, look at MongoDB. It started out under the AGPL, but was rugpulled to a non-free license.
reply
upvoteby akerl_2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
It feels like your actual beef here is with CLAs, which often are designed to allow the current maintainers to relicense.

CLAs are not an attribute of the GPL. They're an agreement that can be applied to contributions to any codebase with any license.

reply
upvoteby WD-422 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Mongo was already a centralized project. Technically open source agpl but I don’t remember it having a large developer community or really many contributions from outside mongo. When the rug pull happened I think simply most people didn’t care or moved on to equal (or better) alternatives. It’s not beloved software like Redis is.
reply
upvoteby em-bee2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The BSD license made forking Valkey easier because it ensures that everyone has equal footing

equal footing on the license is what allowed AWS to crush the original creators of the products they host.

it's a trade off.

the AGPL does not prevent a hosting service. it only prevents creating non-free addons. i see no problem with that. see also my other comment

reply