Good decision, I hope the best for Redis!

Not quite. Company can easily change license at any time. No string attached.

I believe AGPL + time + contributors makes that very difficult. It also means that if you have a commercial product that uses Redis you need to open source your stuff though, so not net better imu. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Nope, looks like they still require a CLA for code contributions, which means they can release it under whatever license they want.

https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md

Hmmm. Yes, agree.

It all depends on if they have a CLA or not. Have CLA == continued easy rug pull, No CLA == rug pull gets harder over time.

No, it doesn’t mean you need to open source your commercial product if it uses Redis. AGPLV3 doesn’t work like that. You need to open source your changes to Redis if you make any, and if your product is distributed through a network.

> You need to open source your changes to Redis

I am pretty sure that AGPL makes you distribute your changes to your users, not to Redis.

Classic operator precedence confusion. The phrase is well written, though:

You need (to open source) (your changes to Redis)

I.e. "you need to open source [your changes (that you have made) to the Redis codebase]"

Oh, got it now. Thanks!