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

The race to replace Redis

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 520 posts

Re: The race to replace Redis

#481

Post by bruce511 »

t888 wrote: post #384
coldtea wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those turtles didn't need to use funding pre-doc-com-boom, they were passion projects and people with time devoted to the "cause" of FOSS. > This is the cognitive dissonance that underpins OSS development. The very people OSS treat as the "enemy" are the people funding OSS in the first place. As much as say RMS rails against big tech, Linux and the rich Linux economy system only exist at the level they do -because- o…

The ‘cause’ of oss? I doubt many people ever were dedicated to a cause outside of GNU diehards. For most other people it was about curiosity or fun, a hobby etc.

Or, as is the point of this article, simply a job. (And likely -most- OSS developers are just paid employees. )

Re: The race to replace Redis

#482

Post by garfieldnate »

Maybe it's good for GitHub, GitLab, etc. to be as open and liberal as possible with its definition of open source, but I think there is definitely an argument to be made that businesses making source available without actually open-sourcing it should pay to have it hosted. GitHub didn't become proactive about asking users to add licenses to repos until far into its existence, and there's plenty of code there that doesn't have an explicit license, but I think participating in the open source community should actually require that your source is open. License proliferation is already an issue, but adding non-open source to GitHub seems especially dangerous to me. The license should be highlighted in bright red with a big note saying that users are not allowed to do what they will with the source code.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#483

Post by jamespo »

mort96 wrote: post #388
fastball wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is open source up until Redis 7.4. Why does it matter to you (someone that cares about it being open source) if future versions created by this specific company are not? You (or someone else) can fork it and continue the work in an open manner. AFAIAC that is the literal purpose of open source.

I don't understand what your point is. I'm saying that it doesn't matter that the community edition is still free of charge, because it's the fact that it's not open source anymore that's the issue. What part of that are you responding to?

I suppose they're getting at why was it important that Redis was open source to you? Under the assumption someone else would be responsible for free updates?

Re: The race to replace Redis

#484

Post by flexagoon »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #460
west0n wrote: post #24

Neal Gompa opened a discussion on the Fedora development list, noting the license change and the need to remove Redis from Fedora. Gompa also raised the issue on openSUSE's Factory discussion list. After Docker was phased out, various distributions have adopted the compatible Podman as a replacement for Docker. It seems that a similar story is unfolding with Redis.

> need to remove Redis from Fedora I don't get it; does the new license prohibit it from being distributed thus, or is this a philosophical "need"?

Fedora only includes free software in it's repos:

> If it is proprietary, it cannot be included in Fedora. (Binary firmware is the only exception to this)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items

Proprietary software is distributed through the unofficial RPM Fusion repo

Re: The race to replace Redis

#485

Post by fweimer »

folkrav wrote: post #448
fweimer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moby is open source. The licensing situation for Docker Engine is unclear.

https://docs.docker.com/engine/#licensing >The Docker Engine is licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0. See LICENSE for the full license text. The linked license file is moby's https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/LICENSE

Docker Engine is the name for the compiled binaries, right? The licensing situation for them must be more complicated than suggested by that LICENSE file.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#486

Post by PeterZaitsev »

One thing I think people underappreciate is license compatibility - the projects which bundled BSD redis very likely can't bundle SSPL redis without changing their own license, or not at all if some other components are licensed with license not compatible with SSPL

This is actually the good news as it makes it all but certain there will be well maintained Open Source Redis alternative.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#487

Post by 1letterunixname »

fmajid wrote: post #337
stephenr wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”, I mean, they've already changed licensing for parts of the project twice in 6 years. I have zero faith that they won't pull a Vader and change the terms of the agreement again. > continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!) I'd guess that > 99% of any "improvements" Redis the company make, will affect As has been pointed out numerous times,…

KeyDB, the multithreaded fork of Redis, is already way faster as a KV store.

Agreed. This a good engineering effort over at Snap. It does clustering too.

https://docs.keydb.dev/docs/cluster-tutorial/

I wished they'd release some of their "Pro" stuff and/or internal-only features.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#488

Post by paulryanrogers »

mort96 wrote: post #445
paulryanrogers wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT and BSD are so liberal that anyone can commercialize the work. All they have to do is attribute your parts to you, and not demand a warranty of you.

Why do corporate MIT-licensed projects have CLAs then? (That's not meant a gotcha, I just don't really know how this stuff works)

CLAs in those cases may be more to cover their ass in case of disputes about authorship, the future of the project, or in case they forget attribution.

Re: The race to replace Redis

#490

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

chii wrote: post #261
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the shoe were on the other foot, AWS wouldn’t hesitate to rip the carpet from under anyone.

It doesnt matter if they would've or not. Presumed innocent until proven guilty (via action). Using this as an argument doesn't work to justify redis inc's actions.

I think your use of innocence is referring to your perceived ethical and moral compass, so while you have a theoretical point about guilty and innocent, your argument isn’t based on legality of actions which ultimately is all that matters.

But if you think AWS would have any shred of ethics when it comes to a topic like this, you’re much more optimistic than I am.

Post reply on HN