> (who actually know their stuff and how licences work, rather than random engineers)
The whole licensing diatribe is more ideological than concrete, so it's actually about "random" engineers more than lawyers.
> so I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest...
First, that most, if not all, of the criticism of dual licensing, in particular WRT the Redis case, is unfounded/uninformed. The SSPL is liberal when it comes to "engineering" freedoms (fork/distribute); the restriction is a business one (SSPL is very close to AGPL).
Second, most importantly, with the advent of cloud engineering, as of now, there's no licensing that makes everybody happy. And this implies that there will be plenty of complaints no matter what (just look at the dual licensing threads):
- if a company adopts standard FOSS licenses, there will be complaints about cloud companies leeching off open source projects
- if a company adopts non-standard but still liberal licenses (e.g. SSPL), there will be complaints about companies betraying the FOSS principles
The whole licensing diatribe is more ideological than concrete, so it's actually about "random" engineers more than lawyers.
> so I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest...
First, that most, if not all, of the criticism of dual licensing, in particular WRT the Redis case, is unfounded/uninformed. The SSPL is liberal when it comes to "engineering" freedoms (fork/distribute); the restriction is a business one (SSPL is very close to AGPL).
Second, most importantly, with the advent of cloud engineering, as of now, there's no licensing that makes everybody happy. And this implies that there will be plenty of complaints no matter what (just look at the dual licensing threads):
- if a company adopts standard FOSS licenses, there will be complaints about cloud companies leeching off open source projects
- if a company adopts non-standard but still liberal licenses (e.g. SSPL), there will be complaints about companies betraying the FOSS principles