Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redis will remain BSD licensed

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–206 of 206 posts

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#201

Post by prepend »

derefr wrote: post #164
prepend wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“...gives almost zero back to OSS...” This is not true as Amazon not only releases it’s own projects but contributes really broadly [0]. I can’t speak for others, but I understand the decision to choose ElastiCache over CC software as I understand Amazon’s model a lot better than projects that change their license. So if I’m going to hinge on something non-OSS, I prefer the logical points where a utility that sells c…

> But we can’t comply with CC. Why not? The point of the CC is literally "pay us to use it commercially." You can't just... pay them to use it? Even when that's exactly what you'd be doing by using an AWS service?

Part of CC is that it’s unclear how it operates with the myriad of other project licenses we use.

But the main issue is that we contribute back to projects, even as minor patches or fixes. Contributing source to a proprietary, commercial code base has legal issues of nonpaid work and contribution.

And finally, “pay them to use it” is very ambiguous. How much to pay them? Is it the same amount today as tomorrow? I pay for support for substantial projects like RedHat, but is support included in licensing CC?

These questions are ambiguous. Perhaps in time they will get easier to answer. But this is exactly why I would rather use AWS with its “so clear its confusing” pricing [0] where I know exactly what I’m getting.

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/pricing/

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#202

Post by rmc »

theyinwhy wrote: post #192
rmc wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to most of people who invented the term "open source", the OSI and their open source definition, propritary software, even if you can see the source, is not "open source". Nearly everyone uses the term "open source" this way, and to use it otherwise is grossly misleading.

Of course, if you follow the osi definition you are absolutely correct. [1] "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.”" [2] The main problem imho lies in the fact that afaik we still don't know how to call proprietary software with released source code, although this is mighty common (again, see github). If that p…

> the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means

I disagree. I think if you ask nearly people who know what the term "source code" means, if you ask them what "open source" means, they'll give the OSI definition (which is in practice the same as the FSF's 'free software' definition). They'll say it's more than "I can look at the source", but includes the rights to share and build on it.

Microsoft tried the term "Shared Source", which might be what you mean.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#203

Post by smarnach »

Just as a curiosity, Redis Labs is offering a hosted Memcached service, so they are a cloud provider profiting from open-source software they did not significantly contribute to. Just saying. (More seriously, I think the only mistake they made was communicating this license change badly, and with too much whining about how unfair it is that people do what the license explicitly allows them to do.)

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#204

Post by irabinovitch1 »

Yiftach wrote: post #55

Hi, this is Yiftach, CTO and Co-founder of Redis Labs. First, let me assure you that Redis remains and always will remain, open source, BSD license. For avoiding any doubt - commons clause (as defined in commonsclause.com) is applied only to add-ons (modules), on top of Redis (e.g. RediSearch, Redis Graph, ReJSON, Redis-ML, Rebloom) that were developed by Redis Labs . We initially released these modules under AGPL li…

I'm not sure I follow here...

a) Is there an example of a cloud provider adopting or building on top of your existing AGPL code bases? The big 3 all have fairly well known internal policies that forbid AGPL use. Ever wonder why there isn't there a MongoDB service being offered by any of the major cloud providers? AGPL.

All that being said I doubt they would want your modules anyways. Their track record tends to be:

* AWS would grab the core BSD licensed project, ignore your management tooling regardless of license, and build their own management tooling that integrates with their ecosystem. Theres a few exceptions to this like [Chef and AWS on OpsWorks](https://twitter.com/adamhjk/status/1032312528196575234).

* Google. They wont use your software either. If anything they'll build some wizbang redis like protocol and interface on one of their internal proprietary databases. All the software will work the same, but it'll be "better" because its powered by BigTable/Spanner/whatever.

* Microsoft. 50/50 shot they might actually just license your code and partner if they thought customers wanted it.

b) I'm not surprised that large customers aren't AGPL fans. Isn't this where they should come in with a dual-license approach and sell commercial licenses to the software you develop? So whats the win here?

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#205

Post by carapace »

mrob wrote: post #167
carapace wrote: post #117

(What I want to know is how does that #$%^ing page hijack the font even in Reader Mode!? WTF! I want serif body fonts goddamnit.)

The body text is contained in a tag with newlines for paragraphs instead of the correct tags. You can force Firefox to respect your font choice by adding a font:inherit to the 's css with the developer tools. This will break pages with correctly used tags.

Thank you! You're too kind.

Re: Redis will remain BSD licensed

#206

Post by antirez »

smarnach wrote: post #203

Just as a curiosity, Redis Labs is offering a hosted Memcached service, so they are a cloud provider profiting from open-source software they did not significantly contribute to. Just saying. (More seriously, I think the only mistake they made was communicating this license change badly, and with too much whining about how unfair it is that people do what the license explicitly allows them to do.)

It's a proxy that targets Redis actually.
Post reply on HN