https://lemmy.ml/post/13864821

I’d understand if they were a random user, but a mod should already have at least some understanding about a community’s topic.

But worse to me are their comments in that post calling the people responding “childish trolls in this community”. I do not think that this is appropriate for a moderator.

  • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I understand what you mean. With Redis and many other database/cloud companies switching to source-available licenses, maybe the term source-available doesn’t have to have such negative connotations. Open-source is also divided in permissive and copyleft licenses (e.g. BSD and GPL), both have big implications on how it can be used.

    Redis and others see themselves forced to switch to a more restrictive license because of the big cloud providers, who sell services for others software, without contributing back. This change is not good, but it might be necessary. Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it’s necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

    I personally don’t really dislike licenses which allow for the necessary freedoms of open-source after one or two years. It’s a compromise but secures the longevity of software beyond a companies success. It’s way better than proprietary code.

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it’s necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.

      In a sense, forcing a commercial vendor to “contribute back monetarily” is a form of restriction 🤔 Not sure if forcing some other kind of contribution would be better, similar to how GPL forces licensing…

      Anyway, thanks for sharing your point of view.

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0