Thanks, I removed fake news because I've the feeling that in US it is used by right-wing people, here in Italy it's the current government that is the master of fake news and is used by our left-wings to criticize what they do. In the doubt I changed the wording. I did not expect the term to be political.
I've the feeling that in US it is used by right-wing people No, both sides love using the term about anything the other side says.
And in removing the reference, he removed any association to "sides" in US politics.. don't really need that especially when dealing with a PR issue such as this.
Thanks, I removed fake news because I've the feeling that in US it is used by right-wing people, here in Italy it's the current government that is the master of fake news and is used by our left-wings to criticize what they do. In the doubt I changed the wording. I did not expect the term to be political.
I've the feeling that in US it is used by right-wing people No, both sides love using the term about anything the other side says.
Ok, good reason to avoid this term. Indeed here it's happening as well... instead of understanding that the point is always to verify the information and their sources, "fake news" is becoming a quick way to dismiss what other people are saying, without actually bringing any more source.
I’m happy to hear that Redis will remain BSD, but it’s a bit weird to play the “fake news” card. Can you really blame people for interpreting this the wrong way? Especially when the original announcement was specifically targeting cloud providers, who, afaik, are just running vanilla redis. If there is anything that we can learn from this, is that a little bit of forethought when putting these announcements out there…
The parts that I noticed were missing from the original announcement include more specifics about the parts of the system that would change licence and also whether the intention was to charge people to use these new parts. It was unclear whether the intention was to stop these cloud providers or to make them pay in some way for what they were doing.
Yep, now finally this is updated to specify exactly what changes license. Incidentally: nothing I ever worked to directly. It would be way cooler if also things like RediSearch or RediGraph could still be totally open source, but it's apparently very hard, Common Clause at least will allow it to be free-as-beer and with the source code available.
antirez: I understand your frustration and don’t mean to take away from the message, but please consider removing “fake news” from the wording. It unnecessarily politicizes the post and really leaves a bad taste. “Fake news” is the term of art that politicians are using to criticize true stories that they don’t like. In this case, you’re trying to correct an actual falsehood. The spreading of falsehoods and their bei…
Thanks, I removed fake news because I've the feeling that in US it is used by right-wing people, here in Italy it's the current government that is the master of fake news and is used by our left-wings to criticize what they do. In the doubt I changed the wording. I did not expect the term to be political.
Even though this comment got downvoted for being overly political, antirez is right, that "fake news" holds completely different associations across the world, depending on who uses this term in a particular country.
It was pretty clear to me on reading the RedisLabs page that Redis itself would be BSD licensed.
And, FWIW, I totally sympathize with the motivations behind their decision. I suspect we'll see variations of this in a variety of projects (if not module licensing, then enterprise-only features, reduced work in the open-source version, etc.)
> However in the fake news era my attempts to provide the correct information failed Eww. This actually removes credibility from the announcement, given the way the term "fake news" continues to be used to distract from objective truth.
What I mean is that even after the project leader tells you it was just some confusion, the Github project still is marked as BSD, and nothing is written in the original announcement clearly stating that Redis would switch license, it is a bit strange that the information continues to spread regardless of what I continued to say.
I understand your meaning. The problem is that the phrase "fake news" in the United States at least is associated with a specific political party. Your message will be less well-received by part of your audience as a result. Perhaps you are fine with that, though.
EDIT: antirez updated the post, so this is no longer relevant.
Honestly my colleagues did a poor job with such an announcement there, and I did not get a chance to read it (which is actually a good thing, it means that the OSS division, I'm part of, is independent and can work to the Github repositories without caring about what the commercial side does). But it was kinda of a manifest to announce that certain things made inside Redis Labs are now Common Clause licensed. In doub…
It was clear to me from a careful reading that the page did not refer to Redis, but it also seemed deliberately designed to suggest that it did. It seemed pretty scummy. And the name itself of "Commons Clause" is practically a tiny version of fake news, since it tries to give an "open source" feeling to what is essentially a proprietary license. As a practical/PR matter, I think Redis Labs have likely shot themselves…
I'll pile on here as well, we were thinking about shifting from elasticache to RL, but this has made that decision super easy.
I think that this clears up questions about redis itself, but doesn't address the concern than future development will be focused on new modules rather than the core - akin to Google Play Services vs. Android.
> doesn't address the concern than future development will be focused on new modules rather than the core which is a very valid thing to do, since dev costs money.
I'm not arguing that, and am personally not outraged by it, but in that context I do understand what seems to be a sense of betrayal on the part of OSS stalwarts, even as redis remains BSD licensed.
What I mean is that even after the project leader tells you it was just some confusion, the Github project still is marked as BSD, and nothing is written in the original announcement clearly stating that Redis would switch license, it is a bit strange that the information continues to spread regardless of what I continued to say.
"Redis is an example of this paradigm. Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed" Crying fake news (which has been co-opted to mean "real news that I don't like or that you shouldn't pay attention to") complete…
I admit that the communication was not great, but the announcement never said Redis would switch. Maybe I'm a bit biased, because before Redis Labs doing this license switch, we internally even agreed about taking the core BSD, so the goals of the company were always clear, regardless of the fact that this page in the company web site was unclear. But "Redis switching license" was factually incorrect since the start and never stated anywhere.