[stackskipton]

Problem comes down to, what is cloud provider?

My company has a piece of software we will sell you that requires Redis/PostGres. For fee, we also offer hosting of said software. Are we now a service provider? Our software does come with ability to manipulate the data in Redis so do we have open source our entire code base? Would we get stuck in lawyer battle royale?

We have resellers coming on board so interface is being built that lets them deploy our software for their customers so Redis will be deployed by us and given to reseller? Are we cloud provider then?

Now, I think reality is Redis wouldn't see as cloud provider because we don't go "Here is Redis, do whatever you want." Lawyers however get paid to think of worst thing that could happen and our lawyers said "Eh...... I'd hate to have these terms hanging over your head."

That's why alot of people recoil at SSPL.

Luckily, Valkey is drop-in replacement for us, testing is almost completed and likely we will switch when paperwork is all completed.

[unethical_ban]

I agree with your analysis and I sympathize with Redis in some way.

It seems to me that it's painfully obvious what a cloud provider is, but that everyone is afraid of what a lawyer could convince a judge in the Eastern District of Texas to think a cloud provider is.

The technical definition should be something akin to offering raw R/W connectivity to redis databases for arbitrary purposes.

Offering a redis-backed SaaS should not be covered.

[foobarchu]

Tbh it seems far past time for the OSI to come out with a blessed license with well defined terminology so we can stop watching every large OS project invent their own way of combating AWS/etc

[slavik81]

Why would the Open Source Initiative bless a non-open source license?

[unethical_ban]

They already have AGPL, these are just a slight step further.