[googlryas]

Pragmatically, this is still open source software, because the software source is freely available.

It might not be Open Source Software now, perhaps according to some zealots like RMS et al.

> According to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licensing cannot limit the scope of a license – it only applies conditions to exercising it. With this model, no one can stop you from doing whatever you want with the software, whether commercial or non-commercial, or (famously) good or evil. Therefore, the no-sale restriction imposed by Commons Clause means that any software under this new license is non-open source by definition. However, in practice, Commons Clause only adds a limitation concerning fair use, and we believe that both licensing approaches share the same core value of making software available for use by anyone.

[dragonwriter]

> Pragmatically, this is still open source software,

No, it's free of charge shared-source software. The OSI and FSF open source and free software definitions are virtually identical despite their very different philosophy because any less freedom than they call for quickly collapses the benefits of the arrangement.

[nvahalik]

I'd say GP is correct, but only insofar as that Redis Labs hasn't changed it yet:

> Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed.

[int_19h]

RMS is all about Free Software. We're talking about Open Source, which is the less ideological / more pragmatic side of the F/OSS world.

[bigiain]

Yep - the comment would have made a lot more sense if it'd left RMS out and used ERS instead.