[GrumpySloth]

> As far as we're concerned, not being copyleft was a bug that was exploited by Redis Ltd

Disclaimer: I don’t have anything against the relicensing to LGPL. I think it’s your right and I root for you.

That said, correct me if I’m wrong, but, as far as I understand, what Redis Ltd did, they could do regardless of the license. Copyleft wouldn’t have stopped them, given the CLA.

Moreover I wouldn’t call that exploitation. To people outside of Redis Ltd who don’t want to be Redis Ltd customers this move is indistinguishable from them just closing down business and stopping development of Redis. Would that be exploitation? Are they obliged to provide free work on Redis indefinitely? They can’t retroactively change the licence of previous versions of Redis, so they can’t actually take anything away. The existence of the 2 forks is proof of that.

[drewdevault]

>That said, correct me if I’m wrong, but, as far as I understand, what Redis Ltd did, they could do regardless of the license. Copyleft wouldn’t have stopped them, given the CLA.

Redis never had a CLA and Redis Ltd does not hold the copyright for the work, it's held in aggregate by all contributors. Redis Ltd did use a CLA for their products surrounding Redis, like RedisJSON, but Redis itself did not use a CLA.

>To people outside of Redis Ltd who don’t want to be Redis Ltd customers this move is indistinguishable from them just closing down business and stopping development of Redis.

Redis Ltd was only ever responsible for about 20% of the development of Redis. If they wanted to shut down operations in good faith they would just hand it over to the other 80% to manage. Instead they used their trademark to try and do a hostile takeover of the IP.