For the type of software that Redis is intended for, integration over network is a must. Hence "just using it" isn't a viable option. AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network. If Redis was AGPL when it was released, nobody would touch it.
Most of the readers of HN make their living from closed source software. You know well enough that non-hostile open source is just a market entry strategy and the type of copyright-driven maximally selfish capitalist markets just force open source to be not viable for a single company to thrive. Projects like Linux kernel are exceptional infrastructure projects that external companies support not build businesses just to ship.
> Hence "just using it" isn't a viable option. AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network.
This is completely, factually, unequivocally, incorrect.
You can connect to Redis using their first-party, MIT-licensed client library. You can write proprietary software using that library with no requirement whatsoever to release your software under any particular license (although of course you still have to comply with the MIT license's attribution requirements).
If all software connecting to the AGPL'd service runs internally, you're not obligated to share your local changes to that service. This covers the vast majority of use cases. Using WordPress with a Redis cache? This doesn't affect you.
If you host an AGPL'd version of a Redis server and your customers connect to it from their own networks, then the only obligation you have over the tried-and-true GPL is that you have to share changes you've made to your Redis server with users. If you use Redis packages as-is like almost everyone does, this doesn't affect you.
So literally the only people who have to care about Redis being under the AGPL now are those who don't want to pay Redis for a commercial license, who expose their Redis server to customers, and who've made local changes to their Redis server. Everyone else gets to keep using it like they always had.
It’s amazing how much FUD there is over GPL/AGPL. I’ve seen at least 10 posts on this thread saying you have to open source your commercial software if you use the new Redis. I don’t know how there could be such a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most common software licenses out there.
I know, right? Corpos have done a great job convincing devs of the “dangers” of copyleft licenses, in favor of permissive licenses that purely coincidentally just happen to benefit those commercial users.
> AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network.
Stop lying. This is FUD. It must be disregarded with extreme prejudice. The AGPL must remain free, and anyone interacting with it over the network must receive the opportunity to obtain the original or modified versions of the AGPL'd software and that's it. Nobody said anything about opening up the entire network stack. That is SSPL territory.
Most of the readers of HN make their living from closed source software. You know well enough that non-hostile open source is just a market entry strategy and the type of copyright-driven maximally selfish capitalist markets just force open source to be not viable for a single company to thrive. Projects like Linux kernel are exceptional infrastructure projects that external companies support not build businesses just to ship.