I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty.
But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution" (ok, fair), which means you must OSL-license your changes too (ok, fair too).
But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.
how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back
it doesn't. but neither does the AGPL. the only reason companies avoid the AGPL is because the AGPL stipulates that anything that the software is integrated with must be distributed as well. they are avoiding the GPL for the same reason. i don't know if the OSL does that too. if it doesn't then it would be less protective than the AGPL.
the AGPL works to prevent competition because companies are scared of it, but that was not its intention. none of the GPL licenses are intended to prevent competition without giving back.
and that is the real problem that redis and other companies are facing: how can we share source with our users without allowing well funded competitors to eat our lunch.
there are several experimental licenses that are trying to address that problem, among others, FUTO is working on that, as is bruce perens. but so far no clear choice has emerged. and unfortunately many see the idea of limiting competition as against the spirit of FOSS. personally, i think that needs to change.
> But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.
What is your definition of “giving back?” To me that means open sourcing your changes, which as you note is what the license requires.
Yeah sorry, stupid choice of words given the subject. I meant paying them for the privilege somehow, which has been Redis (the company)'s goal this whole time. GP suggests OSL3 solves this and I'm trying to figure out how.
Oh I see. IANAL but if the plan with agpl is to sell commercial
versions for people who don’t want to worry about FOSS licensing/infection then it may be a great license for that precisely because of the lack of clarity. You can do similar with OSL - “pay us to get it under a different license where you can make a closed derivative work” - but OSL clearly allows linking (according to its author) without the mere linking requiring opening the thing that links it so it may be strictly worse for Redis.
I was merely saying OSL is better than agpl as a license (imo). It’s very clear. But lack of clarity can have strategic value.
I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty.
But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution" (ok, fair), which means you must OSL-license your changes too (ok, fair too).
But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.