Inflammatory and factually false article, should be flagged:
> For those of you who aren't open-source licensing experts, this means developers can no longer use Redis' code. Sure, they can look at it, but they can't export, borrow from, or touch it.
Windows has at a few points in time become 'source available' but nobody (+dog) thinks they can take that code and use it for anything.
People can do whatever they want with the BSD released code but, going forwards, they can't use any newly licenced proprietary code. I'm no legal expert but this seems to include all the code that was previously released as BSD if one were to reference the new and improved 'source available' release. It stands to reason that all the future releases are now off limits even though they contain identical code from the BSD releases.
In best case, the terms "export, borrow from, or touch it" don't make any sense.
In worst case (which I believe it is) they're rethorical terms that translate to development/licensing concepts; in this case, they're false:
- "export/borrow" can refer to the act of distributing; SSPL allows developers to redistribute and use; what SSPL prevents is for cloud companies to use it as backend for their services
- "touch" means to modify the code; this is absolutely possible, as it is for GPL
There are a few articles around that explain the motivation behind SSPL. It isn't far from AGPL in intent, but it's just too fuzzy to be accepted as FOSS.
> For those of you who aren't open-source licensing experts, this means developers can no longer use Redis' code. Sure, they can look at it, but they can't export, borrow from, or touch it.