Redis is no longer free software

This is perhaps slightly misleading:

* GPLv2 has a clause which explicitly terminates the license if you violate it, and contains no provision for automatic reinstatement upon cure. So by the strict terms of the license, any violation can only be cured with the consent of the licensor. Depending on jurisdiction and the facts of the case, a court might decide that this is unreasonable and apply equitable principles or the local equivalent, but if not, then the license is terminated and the infringing party is required to cease using the software. Some jurisdictions have previously ruled that GPLv2 can only be enforced through contract law and not through copyright law (usually because those systems prefer to limit "infringement" to cases where there was never any valid license at all), but that doesn't necessarily make a difference in terms of what the court ends up ordering.
* BSD-3 (and most other versions of BSD) says that permission is granted "provided that the [...] conditions are met." This is much more vague, but at the same time, it is fairly conventional as contracts go. The conditions are a form of consideration, and when a party fails to meet them, they are in breach of contract. Unfortunately, this clause is an excellent example of why software engineers should not be in the business of evaluating licenses: It probably does not imply termination, at least in common law countries, because those countries have a theory of contract law which promotes "efficient breach" (the idea that, in some cases, everyone would be better off if one party could breach the contract and pay off the other party's damages, rather than having to abide by the strict letter of the contract). If you don't explicitly specify termination or otherwise require specific performance as a remedy, then courts may be reluctant to order it as a matter of public policy, and instead try to work out how much money your counterparty should pay you for the privilege of removing the attribution (read: how much money you personally lost from not having your name/license attributed properly).

The practical reality, however, is that no BSD case is going anywhere near a court of law anytime soon, because it is so much easier for a company to settle a permissive license case (settlement is basically "put the plaintiff's name etc. in a menu that nobody looks at, and maybe pay them some money to go away") than a GPL case (settlement probably involves publishing code that you never intended to be public, may also involve auditing and other stuff the SFC likes to ask for in their settlements).