Redis Icon


Redis is an in-memory data structure store, used as a database, cache and message broker.
7 Stories
All Topics

Stephen O'Grady

Tragedy of the Commons Clause

We've been tracking the community's concerns and feedback about Commons Clause fairly well. In this post, Stephen O'Grady basically writes a book on the subject and the impact of this controversial software license. ...the Commons Clause turns open source software into non-open source software, according to the industry’s accepted definition of that term. Specifically it says that the terms of the original open source license notwithstanding, you may not sell software “whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.” ...there are several logical questions to explore regarding the Commons Clause. What are the drivers behind it? What does it mean for the companies that employ it and the wider industry? And lastly, is it a good idea? Set aside 20 minutes and read this if you care about how this license is becoming popular among those (Redis as of recent) who are protecting their right to generate revenue from their open source code, while removing that ability for everyone else.


Matt Klein Medium

The (broken) economics of OSS

In response to the post from Paul Dix on the misunderstandings going on around Redis and the Common Clause license — Matt Klein tweeted: Won't defend Redis Labs, this is a dead end move, but there needs to be more recognition that the economics of OSS are fundamentally broken. In his post he starts by saying... I want to provide a long form discussion of my two Twitter threads as this topic is nuanced and quite interesting. Note: this post is heavy on opinion and light on facts/references backing up those opinions. Thus, preface everything that follows with “IMO.” Matt goes on to share some history of open source software and his opinions on modern expectations of software being free and open, startups and open source, and who pays...


Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Will Commons Clause destroy open source?

There is a big debate underway over Commons Clause and its recent application to certain Redis enterprise add-ons. The Commons Clause license is open source and was drafted by Heather Meeker — whom you might remember from Request for Commits #9. This language from the license forbids the ability to sell the software (similar to the the Elastic License discussed on The Changelog #292). ...the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols writes for ZDNet: Redis Labs has been unsuccessful in monetizing Redis, or at least not as successful as they'd like. Their executives were discovering, like the far more well-known Docker, that having a great open-source technology did not mean you'd be making millions. Redis' solution was to embrace Commons Clause. This license forbids you from selling the software. It also states you may not host or offer consulting or support services as "a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the software". I'm really curious to see how this tread plays out as more and more organizations see service providers (cloud hosting, SaaS, etc.) and consultants (support contracts, etc.) "getting rich" off of the projects they work so hard to maintain as open source, while they struggle to find a sustainable model for funding the efforts to keep the open source ship afloat.


Paul Dix InfluxData Blog

It’s time for the open source community to get real

Paul Dix shared his thoughts on the subject of Redis and the misunderstandings going on around Redis Common Clause Licensing. Paul writes on the InfluxData blog: The accusation that RedisLabs did a bait and switch is entirely unfair. They’ve been funding open source Redis development for years and that work is now and will be in the future under the liberal BSD license. It’s not like they tricked a bunch of people into using Redis and pulled the rug out from under them. I’m sure that more than 99.99% of the Redis users are completely unaffected by this. And for those others, it’s not like the code that’s already out there is unusable. To my knowledge they can’t retroactively apply the license. So we’re really only talking about forward development to specific modules (not Redis core). Paul also shares how he favors open core, and the issues he has with other models to sustain the development of open source at scale. Open core is a fairly honest way to go about developing open source software. As long as you’re clear about what is open and what is closed. Bradley Kuhn, Executive Director and President of Software Freedom Conservancy, also shared some thoughts on "Commons Clause" style licenses. Update 2018/08/24 @ 15:09 — this Twitter thread is a nice read too.


Salvatore Sanfilippo

Redis will remain BSD licensed

The rumors of Redis taking on a new Creative Common license ARE NOT true. Antirez (Salvatore Sanfilippo) writes on his personal blog: Redis is, and will remain, BSD licensed. However in the era of uncontrollable spreading of information, my attempts to provide the correct information failed, and I'm still seeing everywhere "Redis is no longer open source". The reality is that Redis remains BSD, and actually Redis Labs did the right thing supporting my effort to keep Redis core open. Here's what IS happening... What is happening instead is that certain Redis modules, developed inside Redis Labs, are now released under the Common Clause (using Apache license as a base license). This means that basically certain enterprise add-ons, instead of being completely closed source as they could be, will be available with a more permissive license. Here's how Redis is licensed.

0:00 / 0:00