I so very much wish that Datomic had been licensed this way.
The race to replace Redis
71–80 of 520 posts
Re: The race to replace Redis
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main issue is bait and switch. You start with a license, get lots of external contributors who are working for free, get ecosystem built around it for free and then change because you want to be paid.
I agree. I'm not sure how nefarious this Redis move was. I guess I was assuming any move from 'free', to 'paid', will be met with some outcry regardless of how seamless they can pull it off. Or in other words, it is always a messy transition?
The issue is they took the name with them. If they forked it with a new name no one would have cared.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#73AWS also forked ElasticSearch into their “OpenSearch” DBaaS. It caused some issues at my last job because OpenSearch limited us to a particular version of the NEST .NET library that was missing some newer functionality. Real bummer and feels like a step in the wrong direction given all we’ve accomplished in tech over the last 20 years.
OpenSearch infuriates me to no end.
It lacks so many improvements and advancements since the ancient version it was forked at, but because AWS already has an org's payments details, teams often refuse to look at Elasticsearch.
Even basic things like autocompleting queries have been WIP for half a decade now:
https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/sample-code/...
https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch-Dashboards/...
The superiority AWS was slinging when they "bravely" took the mantle looks terrible in retrospect
Re: The race to replace Redis
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, except for the fact that "redis" the organization didn't create redis and isn't even the main developer of redis. The origin of Redis the company is literally as a hosting provider for the open source redis that they didn't create.
This is what I am confused about so what right do they have to enforce AWS from selling Redis when they do not own it?
From what I understand they acquired the rights to redis from antirez sometime after employing him. I assume he received money for this.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#75It wasn’t clear to me until I read their blog, that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”, which will continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!) So we as developers don’t have to scramble to replace redis in our SAAS apps and web based software. This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the re…
I continue to have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. A (very) long time ago the Apache developers could have gone down this route. > You can only run Apache under very specific circumstances! Or memcached: > You are only allowed to run a memcached server if you're only caching your own website! We see how nonsensical this is
More like you can run Apache except in specific circumstances. People will put up with a lot if there's no alternative.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#76Why don’t we try to fix the “cannot be used for bezos yacht”-licenses instead of shunning the numerous companies of especially databases who want to do good in a meaningful way? Source available is good, better than proprietary which is what we get with aws, but still not enough. People are legitimately afraid of rug pulls, like sneaking in essential features into paid offerings. I think a lot of the skepticism comes…
A bunch of people are working on this from different angles. It's in a chaotic phase right now but it will probably consolidate later.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#77Isn't this the reason why AGPL has started to get more popular? Everyone has to play by the very strict rules except the copyright holder, who can do whatever they want, but the community still benefits from the core software being open source. The BSD license in particular seems like a particularly bad way to run a business.
I see more of a shift to open core. Many large orgs just say no to viral licenses, and in choosing AGPL, you put blockers to adoption. Open core releases some of the project under permissive license, and keeps some private or under a permissions license. We are all still trying to figure out how we can have sustainable open source where people can be paid to work on it full time
The shift to open core was ten years ago. Open core failed and is being replaced with pseudo open source.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#78It wasn’t clear to me until I read their blog, that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”, which will continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!) So we as developers don’t have to scramble to replace redis in our SAAS apps and web based software. This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the re…
> without paying any sort of compensation to the redis developers.
Redis organization doesn't pay any sort of compensation to developers who contribute to redis source code. I do not see any difference here.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, except for the fact that "redis" the organization didn't create redis and isn't even the main developer of redis. The origin of Redis the company is literally as a hosting provider for the open source redis that they didn't create.
This is what I am confused about so what right do they have to enforce AWS from selling Redis when they do not own it?
Trademark, and it's licensed under BSD.
Basically Redis Inc is the one making the fork, which retains the Redis name since they purchased it from antirez.
Re: The race to replace Redis
#80Why don’t we try to fix the “cannot be used for bezos yacht”-licenses instead of shunning the numerous companies of especially databases who want to do good in a meaningful way? Source available is good, better than proprietary which is what we get with aws, but still not enough. People are legitimately afraid of rug pulls, like sneaking in essential features into paid offerings. I think a lot of the skepticism comes…
The best idea I've come up with is a license which only grants the rights to a natural person to use the software otherwise it is identical to the MIT, GPL or AGPL, whatever your cup of tea is.
If you're a corporation then you need to buy a license.