> That's true, but it's an unfortunate accident. In my mind the core problem is that OSI chose to take an existing term/concept (source code being "open" which previously just meant the code was publicly available) and conflating it with a new, much more specific definition relating to copyright license terms.

> And then because the term "open source" already had previous usage in the industry, OSI couldn't get a trademark, which means discussions of "misuse" and "dilution" are purely matters of opinion which are very prone to holy wars. If they had just chosen an actually new/novel term which could be trademarked (e.g. "sourceware" was one alternative floated at the time), I suspect a lot of confusion could have been avoided.

As far as I can tell, the term "open source" was not in any kind of widespread use prior to the explicit open source movement that began in 1998, so while it does sort of sound like a generic term, I don't think they were conflating much with any existing term in widespread use. The OSI themselves[1] also seem to suggest that they believe they were responsible for making the phrase ineligible for trademark:

> Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the “open source” concept into the mainstream.

[1]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

--

> It reduces some of the benefits for the contributor, but it's still a mutually beneficial relationship that (imo) benefits the contributor more than the maintainer. Most third-party contributions are features/fixes specifically needed by the contributor, and having them merged upstream typically makes life much easier for the contributor, despite the possible risk of future relicensing due to the CLA. From the contributors' point of view, that's still generally better than alternatives such as either maintaining a private fork forever, or re-implementing the software in-house from scratch.

Personally, I only contribute to projects with CLAs when I have pretty much no other choice, due to constraints outside of my control. Example: I have begrudgingly made contributions to Qt because I have no control over the upstream that KDE uses.

To be fair, I guess this does technically still count as a mutually beneficial relationship, but to me, it feels a lot more like a toxic one. But yes, that's true.

> A lot of people made this assumption, but at the end of the day, in retrospect this was akin to assuming that ZIRP would remain the status quo forever. And that's understandable, given how the industry skews young and that means a majority of folks have worked their entire career in this low-interest-rate, massive-tech-valuation bubble. And even for older engineers, it's easy to get lost in the bubble when most of your coworkers are younger and have 100% internalized those market conditions as being "normal".

> So then when the bubble deflates a little bit, people start vocally blaming Redis and Hashicorp and RedHat and Elastic and MongoDB and every other previously-open-source company that gets added to this ever-growing list. That's human nature I suppose; when enough people make the same bad assumption, they're going to blame the external symptoms and not blame their own bad assumption.

Well, from my perspective, a perfectly-reasonable, common assumption became an unreasonable without much warning.

As much as people have misgivings about how Red Hat has handled RHEL, they still proved for a very long time that it is possible to run a sustainable business even when the primary thing you do is work on open source projects. They are not alone: there are others. Off the top of my head, Collabora, Ltd. is often right alongside Red Hat. I think all of the misgivings people have with Red Hat are also after the IBM acquisition, so it's hard to be sure exactly what went wrong there.

What's happening today feels very different, though. In a post-CLA world, a lot of companies are banking on the rugpull. They are starting businesses operating in ways they know is not sustainable, securing enormous investments, and knowing full well that when the time is right they will change the rules, which is legal because they reserved the right to do so.

And I won't say that people shouldn't take caution and mind the risk. They are! I think a lot of people are more skeptical of business models than ever. Even on the consumer end, the mantra of "If you're not paying for the product, then you are the product" has entered the mainstream thanks to Facebook, and many are skeptical of startups like Discord as well for similar reasons.

But even then, I feel deeply that companies should take responsibility when the expectations are misaligned. If you have a CLA on your project with the explicit intent to be able to relicense the project later, please communicate this very clearly to your users and contributors. Prior to recently, a very good justification for a CLA was actually just legal book-keeping: it killed many birds with one stone, like allowing a contribution to be used in a dual-licensed product with a commercial license, additional assurance that the person who is contributing the code has the legal right to contribute it, and allowing for good-faith relicensing when it would be helpful (e.g. transitioning from GPLv2 to GPLv2+ or something like that.) I didn't expect CLAs to be used the way they are used today, and needless to say I'm pretty disappointed.

So sure. Users should beware. But, I think that doesn't absolve companies from not setting proper expectations. We should expect companies to not do things that will leave everyone feeling bamboozled. Just as arguably the people should've known better, companies like Redis, Inc. should've known better, too.

> Changing the license doesn't leave the community in the dust though. I mean, "we" don't "have" to fork, unless "we" are cloud providers, right? I find it curious that many of the loudest voices in these threads aren't actually code contributors to the software being discussed. (I'm not referring to your comments, to be clear; I found your writing quite insightful and nuanced, even though I disagree with some of it.)

In some cases, I am legitimately not permitted to use or run SSPL software. To be clear though, it's not like I disagree: I feel like SSPL is a trash fire that, if brought from the metaphorical realm into the physical, could be seen from space. It is less a copyright license to me and more of an extended middle finger.

In other cases, I choose open source for practical reasons. For example, if I am using Linux, many distributions will flat-out not package software that is not open source. This is both for ideological and practical reasons. Working with non-open-source software in an otherwise-fully-open-source project feels like dealing with toxic waste. And it's not entirely unreasonable, as it can be surprising. If I install the Redis package one day and it's open source, then the package updates in a system upgrade and it's SSPL, that would be a rather huge problem! So this clearly can't work, and we have to very clearly distinguish what software is safe to use and what software might be quite unsafe to use.

Even if it is technically possible for me to use SSPL software, I would greatly prefer to not do so anyways. If I wanted to contribute upstream to a project I use, I'd greatly prefer it to be one that doesn't use a CLA. Valkey doesn't use a CLA. Therefore, if I use Valkey, I don't have to sign a CLA to contribute upstream.

> And meanwhile I don't think it is a coincidence that a number of the Valkey contributors work for cloud providers.

Definitely, but actually, I think this sort of model is exactly what has always worked best for open source: all of the cloud providers contributing to it get to benefit equally from it. To me this is what Linux kernel development also looks like, along with many other successful projects.

Is it a bit sad that Redis, Inc. and the folks who made Redis what it is today will ultimately lose out if Valkey winds up dominating the mindshare in the long run? Absolutely, it's a terrible end result. But the way I see it, it feels like it's either that, or the rest of the world loses out on having an open source Redis-compatible database. I don't think Redis, Inc. really needs to be rewarded infinitely forever for the work that they did, even as much as I value it, so this temporary situation, as unfortunate as it may be, seems like a good tradeoff for the longer haul.

I think the story of Redis and many other such projects will wind up being a cautionary tale, and we're just now finding out to whom it will be to. Though, even if I don't like it, it's looking more and more likely that the cautionary tale is to us, the users.