That isn’t it’s primary reason for existence, and it is essentially a volunteer driven org. And so if no-one was going to adopt the package, we have to wait for the maintainer to find some time. https://archlinux.org/packages/?packager=freswa - here’s some of the 167 packages maintained by the last toucher of the Redis package
There is nothing illegal about packaging Redis, or other open-source projects depending on it, irrespective of jurisdiction.
And Arch has no customers to worry about if they accidentally depend on a package that restricts closed-source commercialization, not that it’s a distro’s job to pick on that anyway. Commercial entities are supposed to have a process that checks the licenses of all dependencies. If you know how to reliably avoid AGPL, then you know how to reliably avoid RSAL and SSPL.
And I’m liking the cognitive dissonance of dissing Redis while praising Red Hat 🙂
Fedora did it almost immediately
It is pretty clear Arch doesn’t seem to car about shipping license encumbered software
the arch maintainers are not terminally online like some of us.
That isn’t it’s primary reason for existence, and it is essentially a volunteer driven org. And so if no-one was going to adopt the package, we have to wait for the maintainer to find some time. https://archlinux.org/packages/?packager=freswa - here’s some of the 167 packages maintained by the last toucher of the Redis package
Thank you Frederik!
There is nothing illegal about packaging Redis, or other open-source projects depending on it, irrespective of jurisdiction.
And Arch has no customers to worry about if they accidentally depend on a package that restricts closed-source commercialization, not that it’s a distro’s job to pick on that anyway. Commercial entities are supposed to have a process that checks the licenses of all dependencies. If you know how to reliably avoid AGPL, then you know how to reliably avoid RSAL and SSPL.
And I’m liking the cognitive dissonance of dissing Redis while praising Red Hat 🙂