• Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Well, it’s how I would interpret it, especially for Windows being a violation of section 13 (a little less for whether section 13 applies when you just use Redis: one could argue it applies to dynamic sites that really require fast responses as part of its feature set, which has to use something like Redis). It’s also an issue that nobody has interpreted the license in court yet.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Agree on the court, but the wording is super specific. Doesn’t matter if you couldn’t build it without a redis-like component, because of the speed or whatever, it is targeting “offering the program as a service”. There’s even an FAQ on the mongodb (SSPL authors) site regarding this. Unless your program is just a proxy to access redis, you’re fine.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        I feel like it qualifies under

        offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version

        Doing it fast is essential and a core part of many services’ value, I’m sure.

        You have a point regarding the FAQ but I do not see that written in the license. This is a problem that would only be granted in case MongoDB/ElasticSearch/Redis sues someone for internal use and I think that’s a borderline risk too much to take.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          That wording is pointing to reselling the program or the same functionality. Of course if your service is “fast key based data retrieval” it would violate the definition, but something like “low latency gaming notifications” would not, because the value is gaming notifications, something redis doesn’t offer. Same as if your service uses encryption in transit, you’re not just reselling openssl.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            I know prohibiting reselling is what they probably intended. But that doesn’t mean they can’t push a different and very valid interpretation when they want to.

            you’re not just reselling openssl.

            The wording—“primarily derives from”—is much broader than “just”. I believe that Resque’s dependence on Redis is enough to satisfy “primarily”.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Well, I don’t believe so, but as you said it’s ultimately for a court to test it.