Recent searches
Search options
The Redis thing underscores a key point: _open source is not enough_. We need _community built software_ -- free and open source licenses are just one aspect of that.
If a company requires you to assign copyright (or equivalent re-licensing rights) in an asymmetrical way, they will inevitably eventually decide to take that option once they want to cash in on the goodwill you've built for them (let alone the code).
I know the change to source code publishing for RHEL y-streams went over _poorly_, but I'm proud of this:
Red Hat doesn't pull this "open source obligations for you, but none for us!" trick.
There is _nothing_ that gives Red Hat special rights that other organizations or individuals don't get -- if we want special influence, we have to do it by doing the work, just like anyone else.
In this latest, they say: "Redis has been sponsoring the bulk of development alongside a dynamic community of developers eager to contribute".
I was just talking to @quaid about this, and he made an excellent point: if your company-sponsored open source project is still 95% company-developed, _you messed up several years ago_.
