501–510 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Redis was never meant to be “owned” by this company. They are both predatory.
It is not owned by the company. You are free to create your own fork of the code with all the attendant benefits, including monetization, if applicable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They dont't want AWS royalties. They wanna be able to command higher margins. Since AWS has lower costs and prices, Redis can't compete with good margins. The royalties are just a way to increase AWS costs, so that they raise their prices and give Redis the ability to keep high prices and margins, while still remaining attractive to customers (which don't have a cheaper choice anymore).
They want to make money with the software they built.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not in Debian and their wiki straight up directs you to podman with a nice big scary warning about dockers root issue. https://wiki.debian.org/Docker Docker is dyeing on linux podman will be the only one that remains.
The page suggests podman in a small info box (one that people might skip, because it feels like the Wikipedian "this article has issues" box), but it also tells you how to install real Docker. Docker has name brand recognition, and even if it wasn't in Debian's official repos, it would be installed from Docker's own repos. This wiki isn't popular enough for this to matter anyway, people are likely googling for "docke…
Uh. No.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that Redis has an agreement of sorts with Salvatore Sanfilippo / Antirez, the creator of Redis.
Amazon / Google / Microsoft made a massive mistake by not hiring Antirez, it's chump change for them to throw him $1-2M a year at him so he can work on Redis for them full time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only take, obviously there is no reason to complain. Now the problem is rather when contributors (those who "give", not those who "take") have to sign a CLA. Then the company who gets their copyright takes their work for free, to later use it in a non open-source project (assuming they changed the license, like Redis did). I think it is valid to find this immoral. The solution is pretty simple though: do not c…
Using the code later in a non open-source project can happen also with MIT/Apache licensed code. Even without CLA. Does it mean that company that does it is immoral?
What is considered immoral is to take the copyright from the contributors without giving any compensation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only take, obviously there is no reason to complain. Now the problem is rather when contributors (those who "give", not those who "take") have to sign a CLA. Then the company who gets their copyright takes their work for free, to later use it in a non open-source project (assuming they changed the license, like Redis did). I think it is valid to find this immoral. The solution is pretty simple though: do not c…
No? They create a fork that maintains the existing terms. No cla required.
Developers should be aware of that and, personally, I think contributors should never accept to sign a CLA. If the project requires a CLA, don't contribute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err, after this license change Redis Inc will be the biggest leechers considering they didn't contribute the majority of the code. > Yep still the biggest leachers Redis was literally licensed for people to do whatever they want. That's not leeching.
Redis Labs was a long time sponsor for the full-time development of Redis then later compensated the creator of Redis for their rights to Redis Technology and branding who was ended up retiring from technology to write Sci-Fi books. By contrast AWS takes most of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back, making them the biggest leacher and the primary motivation for the relicensing to prevent mega corps…
You do understand that AWS profits not off redis but by offering redis as a managed hosting provider.
Microsoft and Google do to, it's just that they're not as popular as AWS.
They're not re-skinning or re-selling Redis, they're selling a separate product - the managed operations for operating and scaling Redis.
You may not appreciate this (most on HN never do - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224) But the value is evident to thousands of customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that the hoopla is about the CLA. It feels immoral for an open source project to accept contributions but require a CLA, and later change the license for all those contributions that were never compensated.
If a GPL-ed project requires copyright transfers and then spins a proprietary version, it makes sense for people to be upset. But Redis was BSD or BSD-like, no? Proprietary forks can happen with or without CLA, so it is moot. I would say rather the opposite. If a developer contributes to a BSD (or similar) licensed program (under that same license of course), then at that point they are letting anyone anywhere do wha…
Yes you're right, I thought it was a copyleft license.
But now it is source-available with a CLA. Which in my opinion is a good reason to fork. I would definitely not contribute for free to such a project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole move to new "open-core" licenses started with the most famous (infamous?) AGPL project - MongoDB. The AGPL is not what companies like this want (Mongo, Elastic, Redis etc). They don't want AWS's code: AWS is already providing that. They want AWS to pay them royalties or stop competing.
Then they shouldn’t have open sourced it in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err, after this license change Redis Inc will be the biggest leechers considering they didn't contribute the majority of the code. > Yep still the biggest leachers Redis was literally licensed for people to do whatever they want. That's not leeching.
Redis Labs was a long time sponsor for the full-time development of Redis then later compensated the creator of Redis for their rights to Redis Technology and branding who was ended up retiring from technology to write Sci-Fi books. By contrast AWS takes most of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back, making them the biggest leacher and the primary motivation for the relicensing to prevent mega corps…
AWS takes most of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back