This keeps popping up from database maintainers and unless addressed we're just going to keep talking past each other.

I'd like to challenge the notion that cloud providers are somehow competing with the likes of MongoDB, et al. We're at the point where anyone can stand up a database in a VM with minimal effort. Cloud providers are spending billions on infrastructure to make sure the bits in that database are highly available with low latency. This is scarcely distinguishable from what a traditional colocation service does.

The whole idea of "open source abuse" amounts to special pleading. No one is forced to use an open source license. MongoDB and its peers have access to lawyers who can explain the consequences of this or that licensing decision. Cloud providers offer database deployments under license terms that were offered to them.

If Redis Labs or MongoDB decided tomorrow to take their database proprietary there wouldn't be much gnashing of teeth. The projects would fork. The proprietary forks would see more feature development and we'd all go on with our lives. You're seeing pushback for a few reasons:

1. The name "Commons Clause" appears to intentionally invite confusion with "Creative Commons." Plus the idea that you can jam a rider onto an arbitrary Open Source license and end up with something coherent is woefully misguided. The GPL explicitly blows up language like this.

2. On the heels of the Commons Clause, the SSPL was put up to the OSI as an open source license even though it obviously violates OSD 5,6 and 9. Along with Salil's rants on TechCrunch, this makes it look like a transparent attempt at undermining open source and the OSI.

> In the case of Redis this is a bit a natural process because I'm very unwelcoming to a lot of things that users want because I feel they are not a fit.

As an aside, I don't send you patches for this reason.