[AnthonyMouse]

> This idea that you are owed reciprocity for publishing free software is about as logically sound as expecting compensation from someone when you give them a gift.

Ironically this happened because the community was using the BSD license instead of the GPL, when the former allows someone to fork the code under a different license.

If the big cloud providers wanted to stick it to them, they would create their own fork of the code under the GPL and make substantial contributions to it so that one becomes the main one.

[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Yep. Precisely. Licenses are working as expected. People that spin this as “stealing” are simply showing their own lack of understanding.

[plufz]

I think everybody here understand that you legally can fork bsd code under a new license. I think you and them differ in what you think is morally correct to do for an open source maintainer in the specific context of the redis project.

(I don’t know enough to be in either camp.)

[antirez]

When I chose BSD for Redis, I did it exactly for these reasons. Before Redis, I mostly used the GPL license. Then my beliefs about licensing changed, so I picked the BSD, since it's an "open field" license, everything can happen. One of the things I absolutely wanted, when I started Redis, was: to avoid that I needed some piece of paper from every contributor to give me the copyright and, at the same time, the ability, if needed, to take my fork for my products, create a commercial Redis PRO, or alike. At the same time the BSD allows for many branches to compete, with different licensing and development ideas.

When authors pick a license, it's a serious act. It's not a joke like hey I pick BSD but mind you, I don't really want you to follow the terms! Make sure to don't fork or change license. LOL. A couple of years ago somebody forked Redis and then sold it during some kind of acquisition. The license makes it possible, and nobody complained. Now Redis Inc. changes license, and other parties fork the code to develop it in a different context. Both things are OK with the license, so both things can be done.

A different thing is what one believes to be correct or not for the future of some software. That is, if I was still in charge, would I change license? But that's an impossible game to play, I'm away from the company for four years and I'm not facing the current issues with AWS impossible-to-compete-with scenario. I don't know and I don't care, it does not make sense to do such guesswork. What I know for sure is that licensing is a spectrum. I release code under the MIT or BSD, but that's just me. I understand other choices as well. What I don't understand is making the future of open source in the hands of what OSI says it's correct and wrong. Read the terms of the license, and understand if you are fine with them.

[plufz]

I totally agree. Still I hope that many great projects under BSD and MIT will keep being actively developed under that very license, but I also enjoy the freedom of knowing that I can do more or less what I please with the code.