You're spreading misinformation. See other comments about RSAL/SSPL.
I think you are commenting on things you know nothing about.
Take the time you need to read through the license you are quoting.
Here's a link to the Redis Source Available License 2.0 (RSALv2):
https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement/
With RSALv2 you do not need to reach very far in the licensing terms to read the part where it explicitly prohibits users from providing Redis as a service, or even a modified version of it.
With Server Side Public License (SSPL) it's an even bigger shit show, as it forces any business that uses the software to release under the very same license all software and systems and even user interfaces (?!) that directly or indirectly interact with their project. As it is very easy to understand, this prohibits any company from adopting any software released under that license.
And of course it's so very convenient and an incredible coincidence that the same company that tries to force-feed these licenses to the world just so happens to sell proprietary "enterprise" versions of the same project.
Not "any business", only a business that offers a hosted version of the software. AWS has a problem offering a hosted Redis service, but no one who self-hosts (including running it on a cloud) is affected.
Does "hosted version of the software" mean that the hosted service has to exactly match the API semantics to count? Or does it mean any service that's semantically similar (and powered by) the software (e.g. simply storing and retrieving data on a user's behalf)?
Or does it mean something else?
Where is this actually defined?
I'm definitely not a lawyer; but as a layman I would interpret that as meaning you can't just change a few cosmetic things in the API to get around these terms, since that clearly still "entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version" as well as "accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Program or modified version".
There's certainly edge cases here which I assume will remain a gray area unless they're eventually worked out in court as part of some lawsuit. But given the intent of the license terms and motivation for adopting it (preventing cloud providers from reselling infrastructure software as a managed service), I would really not expect to see lawsuits against non-cloud providers. I mean there's no logical motivation whatsoever for vendors of SSPL-licensed software to start suing random users who aren't competitors. If they wanted payments from all self-host users, they would have used a very different license.
So my guess is the only way this goes to court is if a cloud provider blatantly violates those SSPL terms, which seems unlikely to happen.
