> 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.
What is your definition of “giving back?” To me that means open sourcing your changes, which as you note is what the license requires.