Most commercial projects can safely use any of the Redis forks, whether Redis itself, Redict or Valkey. For Redict, you have to provide the source code of Redict - and Redict only! - in the case that you distribute it to customers. Redis has harsher terms, but only if you provide Redis-as-a-service. If you aren't a cloud provider and you don't modify the code of your chosen Redis variant, this is all a big nothingburger and neither of the licenses impose any important restrictions on you.
We desperately need all open questions regarding AGPL and SSPL to be clarified in court so this fearmongering can stop. It's really really bad for open source.
Open source seems to be doing fine without the clarity. Even fields that have nothing to do with software are adopting the mindset. The movement only gains in steam
Most popular OSS projects use Apache and MIT in my experience, precisely because GPLs are problematic for commercial usage and contributions from employed people.
That has been a popular opinion since FreeBSD was a complete operating system and Linux and bunch of disparate tarballs. Yet here we are.
There have been other examples where copyleft products have competed with more permissively licensed products as commercial products. The results are overwhelmingly in favor of the former.
Empirically, cooperation works much better on a level playing field where your company's work won't be included in a competitors closed fork.
This is a common misconception and source of fear/uncertainty/doubt regarding copyleft licenses. It's true that, the stronger the copyleft license, the more obligations it imposes on companies, and the AGPL is perhaps the most onerous of all and thus the least attractive to businesses. But, copyleft exists on a spectrum, and there are thousands of big-ticket FOSS projects that tens of thousands of businesses depend on and make use of that have a copyleft license. Linux itself is GPL, and pretty much everyone depends on it.
The license for Redict is one of the weaker copyleft licenses and should not pose any onerous compliance obligations on the most common commercial use-cases for Redict.
Don't know why this is downvoted, I have endlessly heard corp lawyers say this to my face while I worked there.
I have had a "popular" open source library I contributed significantly to campaigned by Microsoft to change the license to MIT, and the founder and creator decided to relicense without getting any sign offs because they felt that nobody would get mad enough to sue them.
The only thing stopping a commercial product from using copyleft software is themselves, not the copyleft.
Lawyers entire job is to make convincing arguments for any position you want, by artfully speaking only true facts, no matter what the position is and no matter what the facts are.
Of course a lawyer can and will say that you "can't" let any gpl software pollute the companys product "because the gpl prevents it", instead of saying that the company doesn't want to pay the license fee for the software.
The facts of the gpls terms may be true, and the lawyer may present them for their argument, but that still doesn't make the overall assertion true.
They can use gpl software all they want. They just don't want to. And good for them. That is better than simply stealing it which many do.
It's also merely an assertion that "most" open source software uses apache/mit/bsd wthout some numbers and citation. But that sentence could be parsed more than one way. They might have only been saying that most of the projects that use apache/mit do so for commercial compatibility reasons.
Corp lawyers job is to derisk and protect the company.
Strong copyleft risks converting private IP into something that must be shared publicly. This is what these licenses are designed to do. Blanket bans on specific licenses makes sense because they don't have the time to evaluate every potential case or usage
How many of the copyleft projects actually have a commercial offering or paid support plan?
Who said anything about a commercial or paid support plan?
The price the corp doesn't want to pay isn't money.
There are no potential edge cases to worry about if you aren't trying to live on renting copies of the same software to many people in the first place. Then you can live it even greater safety with no need to even audit anything.
We desperately need all open questions regarding AGPL and SSPL to be clarified in court so this fearmongering can stop. It's really really bad for open source.