Redis is an example of this paradigm. Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them.
This makes no sense. Redis was not developped by Redis Labs either, they only hired Antirez a few years ago. Before that, they were doing exactly what they criticize today. I would even say they weren’t the best actor in that space, e.g. OpenRedis was founded by people truly involved in the community…
I won’t say any more before I see a direct take from Salvatore on this issue.
In any case, commercially, I think this is a huge mistake. If they persist Redis is going to be forked and the fork will eventually win, a la MariaDB.
EDIT: I had misread the announcement, this is only about modules which will be Apache 2 + Commons Clause, while the Redis core will remain BSD. I am fine with that even though I think AGPL would make more sense if you want those modules to become popular. Enforcing a monopoly on hosting is never a good idea.
From various comments I can read online it looks like I was not the only one to misunderstand. That Redis was unaffected should probably have been the first line of that post, in bold…
MariaDB isn’t the bastion of open source people make it out to be.
Since the original claim that a) Oracle would close-source MySQL, and/or let it stagnate to force adoption of their commercial offerings, and thus b) MariaDB would fork MySQL and maintain feature parity, in an open source model:
Oracle have released several new versions, with major new features/functionality/SQL compatibility
Oracle have maintained the existing Open Source licence
MariaDB have broken compatibility in numerous places
MariaDB have backflipped and made one of their components for running a HA cluster, closed source.
Honestly if your (the reader, not @catwell) app/company needs MySQL and isn’t paying for a commercial licence from Oracle, IMO you’d be stupid not to use either Persona Server or Percona Cluster. Actual feature parity (i.e. they constantly rebase from upstream) and a clear business model: pay for support/advice, the software is completely free.
clear business model: pay for support/advice, the software is completely free.
That business model is what Redis Labs is trying to address. There’s a serious problem for companies with that model if a large hosting provider like AWS that more and more people are moving to can come in and offer a “as a service” version that cuts off the support revenue stream. At that point, AWS can benefit from the work that said company is doing without contributing anything back.
Open source software in general and open source business models often assume that you won’t have parasitic players in the market who derive value from the work of others but contribute nothing in return. The current system is going to have to change eventually to account for that.
It might end up being that all open source software is produced by companies that aren’t “product” companies. For example, Google spinning out K8S and not attempting to make money off the software. LinkedIn getting an advantage out of opening up Kafka etc. In that world, eventually, there will be very few companies like RedisLabs, CockroachDB, InfluxDB etc that are trying to be product companies. The large move “to the cloud” that is underway is a huge disruption to that previously OSS business model. I think a model that many will try will be to take an open source product and provide close sourced, additional functionality around those codebases (thereby sidestepping licenses like the AGPL) and doing managed hosting and as a service hosting within the big clouds like AWS, GCP, and Azure.
There’s a serious problem for companies with that model if a large hosting provider like AWS that more and more people are moving to can come in and offer a “as a service” version that cuts off the support revenue stream.
Percona provide support services for customers who use AWS’ various mysql flavoured “DB as a Service” offerings.
This is not that different IMO than what Rackspace did - they took their Ops/Arch experience, and offered it as a service, regardless of who hosts the underlying machines.
The 3 modules that were reliscened were previously AGPL. AGPL doesn’t provide the protections that Redis Labs is seeking. Most OSS companies have a business model that revolves around support. If a large hosting provider like Amazon comes in and provides an “as a service” version, that cuts off a primary revenue stream. If said hosting provider doesn’t produce improvements to the codebase then AGPL doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t address the core problem. Most OSS companies have a business model that revolves around support. If a large hosting provider like Amazon comes in and provides an “as a service” version, that cuts off a primary revenue stream. If said hosting provider doesn’t produce improvements to the codebase then AGPL doesn’t matter.
AGPL says you have to release improvements. It doesn’t make you contribute to the community.
If a community is getting a lot of financial support from a company like Redis Labs paying for core open source work, a company like Amazon can come along and do an as a service version and contribute nothing. AGPL does nothing for that.
The issue is many projects are pushed forward by commercial offerings that rely on support/services as a means to provide financial support. Our open source licenses provide no protection for that model.
Perhaps the model is flawed and we need something better. But there is no protection from parasitic behavior in that case.
It extends further though, in general, there’s no way for an open source community to develop a means to financially support itself and not rely on free labor that is free of concerns. But that’s another topic.
The world has changed around free and open source. They haven’t adjusted to that change beyond AGPL being created to address some issues.
I personally don’t think that commons clause is the right solution but I understand the problem they are looking to solve.
Apologies for any typos. I answered this from my phone.
Companies dual-license under both GPL and AGPL. So, it could be done AGPL with cloud vendors paying a license. There’s a lot of FOSS developers that oppose the AGPL, though.
It absolutely is. Read the FAQ section on the AGPL, it’s very unclear. ‘Many features of the AGPL…’ kind of language. What features? It’s not the Linux kernel, it’s a license, it’s pretty small, just say what these supposed features are.
Of course the reason they don’t is that it’s a smokescreen: the AGPL is of course fine, but their goal isn’t to make the software free, it’s to profiteer off it.
Yes, Redis Labs is in the business of paying people to work on Redis and the Redis ecosystem and needs to make money to do that. The business model for companies such as that is based on support. If someone cuts off that revenue stream the money falls apart. We can as a community accept that such companies will need to build protections for themselves (licenses like common cause or having some closed source components) or accept a world in which there are no companies that exist to support specific products that could be turned into as “as a service” by a large player.
The AGPL does nothing to stop someone like AWS from taking what Redis Labs does and making money off of it and wrecking the Redis Labs business model (which is shared by a number of companies). I commend them for trying an approach that leaves the module source available and even “open” for some segment of the user base. The alternatives are “new business model”, “go out of business”, or starting to make more and more of their offerings closed source.
The AGPL does nothing to stop someone like AWS from taking what Redis Labs does and making money off of it and wrecking the Redis Labs business model (which is shared by a number of companies).
Nonsense. AWS wouldn’t touch an AGPL redis with a ten foot barge pole.
AGPL/commercial dual licensing is actually open source.
I commend them for trying an approach that leaves the module source available and even “open” for some segment of the user base. The alternatives are “new business model”, “go out of business”, or starting to make more and more of their offerings closed source.
I wouldn’t contribute to Commons Clause projects since they are not inbound=outbound, but it seems they don’t expect contributions anyway. So it is probably okay.
Ugh, as if FLOSS license proliferation wasn’t bad enough, there are more of these “Openish” licenses. After reading @antirez ‘s comments, it seems they’re trying to take a stand that keeps them making money and isn’t completely closed source.
I wish them well because
they financially support antirez and his open source work
they want to do right by the software community
but they are starting on the slippery slope of being more closed-source.
but they are starting on the slippery slope of being more closed-source.
Or a discovery process exploring licensing options and business models open-source advocates ignored intentionally for ideological reasons which might lead to more paid developers writing free as in beer or speech software or even sustainable, high-quality, low-cost, closed-source software. I’m all for more experimentation with hybrid licenses to see what happens. Personally, I think those routes can be better than FOSS where stuff like Linux mostly gets contributions by a handful of companies for their proprietary reasons that fortunately benefit us on the side. Contributions from users, personal or commercial, vs their use and revenue generation is a gap so large we should be trying everything to close it.
Upvote for the discussion. “Company Makes Business Decision” is rarely on-topic for Lobsters and often goes off the Rails; I’ve upvoted because I appreciate that we’re not rehashing well-worn licensing arguments here, though this announcement was poorly written.
Nobody is censoring you. If anything, your visibility has been boosted by being on front page with another high-visibility thread. I didn’t even know about your article until I saw it here. To avoid clutter, the admins sometimes combine posts talking about same event or topic into a group. I can see someone not liking that decision. I’m not for or against it right now.
You weren’t censored, though. A mechanism bringing your writing to my attention is opposite of censorship.
I don’t think you have this exactly right. What happens is someone submits it as an independent post, which is freely ranked on its own merits. Then a moderator merges it with a post which is already growing stale, as a significant fraction of the site has already looked at it and has little reason to return, except to consider replies to their comments - and even then they have to notice more articles have been added. It also removes a dedicated space for discussing that particular article, which in this case is important because the second article is more about Commons than it is about Redis, making the discussions difficult to live in parallel.
The original, independent post was censored by merging it into here. On the previous occasion the new post was merged into a post which was then several days old, where I presume approximately zero people saw it. This is censorship, and a clear cut case of it too. I don’t consider myself entitled to exposure but it’s censorship all the same, and part of the reason I distanced myself from Lobsters except to participate where others have posted my content.
The original, independent post was censored by merging it into here. On the previous occasion the new post was merged into a post which was then several days old, where I presume approximately zero people saw it.
If your story disappeared, that scenario would be censorship since it was manipulated in a way that would nearly guarantee nobody would see it. The new one isn’t censorship because censorship is about people not seeing your stuff. The combined submission is 20+ votes on front page of a site with more readers than most blogs. Your views going up instead of down is opposite of censorship at least in general definition and effect it has.
The new one isn’t censorship because censorship is about people not seeing your stuff
“Taking measures which prevent others from seeing your stuff” is literally censorship. I don’t want to argue semantics with you any longer. All of the information is on the table in the comments here, let people read them and settle on an opinion themselves.
I really appreciate your point of view normally, but in this case I think you’re incorrect: it would be nice to have the community’s take on @SirCmpwn’s article itself (which is well worth reading) rather than have the comments blended in with those on Redis Labs.
As a non-commercial user, I’m okay with using stuff that’s for non-commercial use only.
The problem is when I want to, say, copy a few functions into my own project which I’m publishing under completely unrestricted terms (say, Unlicense). Or use as a dependency, etc.
So, I’d say it’s okay-ish for “product-like” stuff, for user-facing applications. But please NEVER publish libraries everyone depends upon under these terms.
This is especially amusing because this addition is actually already rendered null by the AGPL itself in Section 7: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
neo4j have been made aware of this issue, and don’t seem to care. This is a very concerning time for software licensing. :(
I’m not sure I’m sold on this. I get why people building infrastructure software like redis might want this. Yes, it helps them keep the “Foo as a Service” market as a captive income stream without competition from AWS, et al. At the same time it seems like for any service of much worth, it’s going to get cloned by the big providers anyway, and then you have a proliferation of similar but incompatible closed-source versions. I’m not convinced that is necessarily good for the community at large.
I think it’s just a protection to avoid a Redis as a service launched with plain redis and few bits here and there to make the offering work. Big players can obviously clone it and have theirs, but at least most small to middle size players are eliminated. (From what I understand).
You can still start Redis as a Service companies. I was shocked at first because I thought this concerned Redis and their aim was to kill all of the Redis as a Service providers which already exist. But it turns out Redis Core is unaffected by this, only some modules are.
I don’t really know what they intend to achieve with this, except having people avoid using their modules…
Which doesn’t seem worthwhile, as the big players are the ones most likely to be able to market and monetise a service based on core Redis plus their own proprietary add-ons. It’s pretty difficult to compete with AWS on any front at this stage, given their massive resources and the “nobody ever gets fired for buying X” safety of big brands.
Boxing out only the small players doesn’t really feel like it’s going to preserve a whole bunch of market or mindshare for the Redis company.
I’m not into business very much, so I cannot evaluate if this operation is worth it or not, I would just assume that they were going for the long tail, which can be a sufficient number of clients to have decent revenue and continue to work on the Redis company.
In reality I don’t have the feeling that a “long tail” actually exists for a lot of these types of services. I base this on the Firebase/Parse era when there were loads of “backend as a service” companies around that have all withered away (my understanding at least). With only google/Firebase remaining. I personally was surprised by this.
More of a question about the commons clause than its application to these modules in particular, but the link says this:
if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product
But the language of the clause prohibits selling of:
a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.
Why does an application that uses redis as its storage or caching layer not “substantially” derive from the functionality of the software? What does “substantial” mean here? If I write a HTTP wrapper around redis + the redis labs modules can I sell that as a hosted service?
I clarified that the Redis core (https://github.com/antirez/redis) remains BSD, and what I think about the license switch Redis Labs is operating on certain Redis Modules. https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032180321834467330
and the considerations thread:
https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032192721308594176
New blog post about the matter: http://antirez.com/latest/0
This makes no sense. Redis was not developped by Redis Labs either, they only hired Antirez a few years ago. Before that, they were doing exactly what they criticize today. I would even say they weren’t the best actor in that space, e.g. OpenRedis was founded by people truly involved in the community…
I won’t say any more before I see a direct take from Salvatore on this issue.
In any case, commercially, I think this is a huge mistake. If they persist Redis is going to be forked and the fork will eventually win, a la MariaDB.
EDIT: I had misread the announcement, this is only about modules which will be Apache 2 + Commons Clause, while the Redis core will remain BSD. I am fine with that even though I think AGPL would make more sense if you want those modules to become popular. Enforcing a monopoly on hosting is never a good idea.
From various comments I can read online it looks like I was not the only one to misunderstand. That Redis was unaffected should probably have been the first line of that post, in bold…
EDIT 2: Salvatore himself is tweeting about the issue on Twitter right now. https://twitter.com/antirez/status/1032192722755571714
MariaDB isn’t the bastion of open source people make it out to be.
Since the original claim that a) Oracle would close-source MySQL, and/or let it stagnate to force adoption of their commercial offerings, and thus b) MariaDB would fork MySQL and maintain feature parity, in an open source model:
Honestly if your (the reader, not @catwell) app/company needs MySQL and isn’t paying for a commercial licence from Oracle, IMO you’d be stupid not to use either Persona Server or Percona Cluster. Actual feature parity (i.e. they constantly rebase from upstream) and a clear business model: pay for support/advice, the software is completely free.
That business model is what Redis Labs is trying to address. There’s a serious problem for companies with that model if a large hosting provider like AWS that more and more people are moving to can come in and offer a “as a service” version that cuts off the support revenue stream. At that point, AWS can benefit from the work that said company is doing without contributing anything back.
Open source software in general and open source business models often assume that you won’t have parasitic players in the market who derive value from the work of others but contribute nothing in return. The current system is going to have to change eventually to account for that.
It might end up being that all open source software is produced by companies that aren’t “product” companies. For example, Google spinning out K8S and not attempting to make money off the software. LinkedIn getting an advantage out of opening up Kafka etc. In that world, eventually, there will be very few companies like RedisLabs, CockroachDB, InfluxDB etc that are trying to be product companies. The large move “to the cloud” that is underway is a huge disruption to that previously OSS business model. I think a model that many will try will be to take an open source product and provide close sourced, additional functionality around those codebases (thereby sidestepping licenses like the AGPL) and doing managed hosting and as a service hosting within the big clouds like AWS, GCP, and Azure.
Percona provide support services for customers who use AWS’ various mysql flavoured “DB as a Service” offerings.
This is not that different IMO than what Rackspace did - they took their Ops/Arch experience, and offered it as a service, regardless of who hosts the underlying machines.
Oracle MySQL is alive and well and there is no sign of MariaDB winning.
Re: AGPL
The 3 modules that were reliscened were previously AGPL. AGPL doesn’t provide the protections that Redis Labs is seeking. Most OSS companies have a business model that revolves around support. If a large hosting provider like Amazon comes in and provides an “as a service” version, that cuts off a primary revenue stream. If said hosting provider doesn’t produce improvements to the codebase then AGPL doesn’t matter.
Imho this sounds like what is potentially/usually addressed by the AGPL.
No, the text they write definitely shows that they are in for the money.
AGPL can be used like that… cannot it?
It doesn’t address the core problem. Most OSS companies have a business model that revolves around support. If a large hosting provider like Amazon comes in and provides an “as a service” version, that cuts off a primary revenue stream. If said hosting provider doesn’t produce improvements to the codebase then AGPL doesn’t matter.
I thought AGPL is specially forged to prevent that. Or do you mean that Amazon recreated their own version from scratch?
AGPL says you have to release improvements. It doesn’t make you contribute to the community.
If a community is getting a lot of financial support from a company like Redis Labs paying for core open source work, a company like Amazon can come along and do an as a service version and contribute nothing. AGPL does nothing for that.
The issue is many projects are pushed forward by commercial offerings that rely on support/services as a means to provide financial support. Our open source licenses provide no protection for that model.
Perhaps the model is flawed and we need something better. But there is no protection from parasitic behavior in that case.
It extends further though, in general, there’s no way for an open source community to develop a means to financially support itself and not rely on free labor that is free of concerns. But that’s another topic.
The world has changed around free and open source. They haven’t adjusted to that change beyond AGPL being created to address some issues.
I personally don’t think that commons clause is the right solution but I understand the problem they are looking to solve.
Apologies for any typos. I answered this from my phone.
Nice explanation!
Companies dual-license under both GPL and AGPL. So, it could be done AGPL with cloud vendors paying a license. There’s a lot of FOSS developers that oppose the AGPL, though.
The previous license for the 3 modules in question was previously AGPL.
It absolutely is. Read the FAQ section on the AGPL, it’s very unclear. ‘Many features of the AGPL…’ kind of language. What features? It’s not the Linux kernel, it’s a license, it’s pretty small, just say what these supposed features are.
Of course the reason they don’t is that it’s a smokescreen: the AGPL is of course fine, but their goal isn’t to make the software free, it’s to profiteer off it.
Yes, Redis Labs is in the business of paying people to work on Redis and the Redis ecosystem and needs to make money to do that. The business model for companies such as that is based on support. If someone cuts off that revenue stream the money falls apart. We can as a community accept that such companies will need to build protections for themselves (licenses like common cause or having some closed source components) or accept a world in which there are no companies that exist to support specific products that could be turned into as “as a service” by a large player.
The AGPL does nothing to stop someone like AWS from taking what Redis Labs does and making money off of it and wrecking the Redis Labs business model (which is shared by a number of companies). I commend them for trying an approach that leaves the module source available and even “open” for some segment of the user base. The alternatives are “new business model”, “go out of business”, or starting to make more and more of their offerings closed source.
Nonsense. AWS wouldn’t touch an AGPL redis with a ten foot barge pole.
AGPL/commercial dual licensing is actually open source.
Calling this open is literally telling a lie.
I wouldn’t contribute to Commons Clause projects since they are not inbound=outbound, but it seems they don’t expect contributions anyway. So it is probably okay.
I think that’s a completely reasonable response. Many folks won’t contribute to a given project based on the license.
Ugh, as if FLOSS license proliferation wasn’t bad enough, there are more of these “Openish” licenses. After reading @antirez ‘s comments, it seems they’re trying to take a stand that keeps them making money and isn’t completely closed source.
I wish them well because
but they are starting on the slippery slope of being more closed-source.
Or a discovery process exploring licensing options and business models open-source advocates ignored intentionally for ideological reasons which might lead to more paid developers writing free as in beer or speech software or even sustainable, high-quality, low-cost, closed-source software. I’m all for more experimentation with hybrid licenses to see what happens. Personally, I think those routes can be better than FOSS where stuff like Linux mostly gets contributions by a handful of companies for their proprietary reasons that fortunately benefit us on the side. Contributions from users, personal or commercial, vs their use and revenue generation is a gap so large we should be trying everything to close it.
Argh, I want to upvote ‘The Commons Clause will destroy open source’ without upvoting Redis Labs’s action.
Upvote for the discussion. “Company Makes Business Decision” is rarely on-topic for Lobsters and often goes off the Rails; I’ve upvoted because I appreciate that we’re not rehashing well-worn licensing arguments here, though this announcement was poorly written.
This is the second time Lobsters has censored my articles by merging them into tangentally related discussions.
Nobody is censoring you. If anything, your visibility has been boosted by being on front page with another high-visibility thread. I didn’t even know about your article until I saw it here. To avoid clutter, the admins sometimes combine posts talking about same event or topic into a group. I can see someone not liking that decision. I’m not for or against it right now.
You weren’t censored, though. A mechanism bringing your writing to my attention is opposite of censorship.
I don’t think you have this exactly right. What happens is someone submits it as an independent post, which is freely ranked on its own merits. Then a moderator merges it with a post which is already growing stale, as a significant fraction of the site has already looked at it and has little reason to return, except to consider replies to their comments - and even then they have to notice more articles have been added. It also removes a dedicated space for discussing that particular article, which in this case is important because the second article is more about Commons than it is about Redis, making the discussions difficult to live in parallel.
The original, independent post was censored by merging it into here. On the previous occasion the new post was merged into a post which was then several days old, where I presume approximately zero people saw it. This is censorship, and a clear cut case of it too. I don’t consider myself entitled to exposure but it’s censorship all the same, and part of the reason I distanced myself from Lobsters except to participate where others have posted my content.
If your story disappeared, that scenario would be censorship since it was manipulated in a way that would nearly guarantee nobody would see it. The new one isn’t censorship because censorship is about people not seeing your stuff. The combined submission is 20+ votes on front page of a site with more readers than most blogs. Your views going up instead of down is opposite of censorship at least in general definition and effect it has.
“Taking measures which prevent others from seeing your stuff” is literally censorship. I don’t want to argue semantics with you any longer. All of the information is on the table in the comments here, let people read them and settle on an opinion themselves.
“Taking measures which prevent others from seeing your stuff” is literally censorship”
I saw your stuff through Lobsters’ measures. So, it’s not censorship by your definition.
“let people read them and settle on an opinion themselves”
By all means.
I really appreciate your point of view normally, but in this case I think you’re incorrect: it would be nice to have the community’s take on @SirCmpwn’s article itself (which is well worth reading) rather than have the comments blended in with those on Redis Labs.
Upvoting doesn’t necessarily have to be approval of the content of the post. (though it usually should be)
(cross-posting my hn comment)
As a non-commercial user, I’m okay with using stuff that’s for non-commercial use only.
The problem is when I want to, say, copy a few functions into my own project which I’m publishing under completely unrestricted terms (say, Unlicense). Or use as a dependency, etc.
So, I’d say it’s okay-ish for “product-like” stuff, for user-facing applications. But please NEVER publish libraries everyone depends upon under these terms.
This is a disturbing trend in licensing of core technologies that we’re basing our lives on. It concerns me a great deal. :(
neo4j recently added a Commons Clause to their AGPL Enterprise Edition: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/commit/6558e5eec59c5eccf866baaf70d1c215e5fa4398#diff-15abcf402afc68b67bc1f749fb6c7f82R681
This is especially amusing because this addition is actually already rendered null by the AGPL itself in Section 7: If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
neo4j have been made aware of this issue, and don’t seem to care. This is a very concerning time for software licensing. :(
Tired: Our product is a community
Wired: Privatizing the commons to save it
I’m not sure I’m sold on this. I get why people building infrastructure software like redis might want this. Yes, it helps them keep the “Foo as a Service” market as a captive income stream without competition from AWS, et al. At the same time it seems like for any service of much worth, it’s going to get cloned by the big providers anyway, and then you have a proliferation of similar but incompatible closed-source versions. I’m not convinced that is necessarily good for the community at large.
I think it’s just a protection to avoid a Redis as a service launched with plain redis and few bits here and there to make the offering work. Big players can obviously clone it and have theirs, but at least most small to middle size players are eliminated. (From what I understand).
You can still start Redis as a Service companies. I was shocked at first because I thought this concerned Redis and their aim was to kill all of the Redis as a Service providers which already exist. But it turns out Redis Core is unaffected by this, only some modules are.
I don’t really know what they intend to achieve with this, except having people avoid using their modules…
Which doesn’t seem worthwhile, as the big players are the ones most likely to be able to market and monetise a service based on core Redis plus their own proprietary add-ons. It’s pretty difficult to compete with AWS on any front at this stage, given their massive resources and the “nobody ever gets fired for buying X” safety of big brands.
Boxing out only the small players doesn’t really feel like it’s going to preserve a whole bunch of market or mindshare for the Redis company.
I’m not into business very much, so I cannot evaluate if this operation is worth it or not, I would just assume that they were going for the long tail, which can be a sufficient number of clients to have decent revenue and continue to work on the Redis company.
In reality I don’t have the feeling that a “long tail” actually exists for a lot of these types of services. I base this on the Firebase/Parse era when there were loads of “backend as a service” companies around that have all withered away (my understanding at least). With only google/Firebase remaining. I personally was surprised by this.
More of a question about the commons clause than its application to these modules in particular, but the link says this:
But the language of the clause prohibits selling of:
Why does an application that uses redis as its storage or caching layer not “substantially” derive from the functionality of the software? What does “substantial” mean here? If I write a HTTP wrapper around redis + the redis labs modules can I sell that as a hosted service?
This should probably be tagged
release, since it’s about a policy change for software. It still feels a little too newsy to me though. :(