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

Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

redict.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 178 posts

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#51

Post by sanxiyn »

bunnyfoofoo wrote: post #45
sanxiyn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS and Google contributed those under BSD license , being fully informed that Redis Ltd can commercialize like this. It makes perfect sense for AWS and Google to fork immediately after the switch, but for contributions before the switch, there is no basis for AWS and Google to complain Redis Ltd, either legally or morally.

Legally, they can't complain, but morally it is icky. Redis is a leech.

If you don't want to be leeched, don't contribute to BSD licensed projects.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#52

Post by [deleted] »

bunnyfoofoo wrote: post #45
sanxiyn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS and Google contributed those under BSD license , being fully informed that Redis Ltd can commercialize like this. It makes perfect sense for AWS and Google to fork immediately after the switch, but for contributions before the switch, there is no basis for AWS and Google to complain Redis Ltd, either legally or morally.

Legally, they can't complain, but morally it is icky. Redis is a leech.

[deleted]

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#53

Post by drewdevault »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #30
yurytom wrote: post #8

What about Valkey? We have 2 big forks now

Valkey has the support of various Redis developers who moved over, keeps the same license as the original Redis did, and stayed on GitHub to keep the workflow that Redis developers and contributors are used to, so I expect it'll end up winning out. GitHub is proprietary and not ideal, but when trying to get developers on board after a fork, using GitHub and using the same license as the original avoids spending innov…

Codeberg was chosen over other candidates because it has a workflow similar to GitHub, to ease the transition for the existing community. In my opinion, we're going through a big shake-up anyway and there's no better time than now to consider changes like this. We did discuss moving it to GitHub or another platform entirely, but as a community we decided to stay on Codeberg.

Changing the license was an absolutely essential requirement, and this is a crucial time to evaluate and commit to that change. As far as we're concerned, not being copyleft was a bug that was exploited by Redis Ltd, and a fork which doesn't fix that bug isn't addressing the underlying problem.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#54

Post by School-Cotton »

drewdevault wrote: post #47
gadders wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google Employees on their own time, or paid to do it? So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay?

>So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay? That's the pitch of the license, essentially, but in practice the SSPL is an utter nightmare to comply with (to the point of being deliberate) and it mainly exists to put a veneer of open source on a proprietary product. In…

> In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd

Isn’t this exactly what the person you’re replying to was saying?

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#55

Post by marcinzm »

treprinum wrote: post #50

Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.

There's nothing idealistic involved. Startups want users more than they want revenue. Thus they open source it, use VC money to cover the loses and then eventually try to squeeze those users for money.

Redis Labs also did not in any way make Redis. They came in later to exploit the already open source project for their own benefit.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#56

Post by eloisant »

treprinum wrote: post #50

Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.

Open Source doesn't have to come from a startup with a business model based that one open source project.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#57

Post by KronisLV »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #30
yurytom wrote: post #8

What about Valkey? We have 2 big forks now

Valkey has the support of various Redis developers who moved over, keeps the same license as the original Redis did, and stayed on GitHub to keep the workflow that Redis developers and contributors are used to, so I expect it'll end up winning out. GitHub is proprietary and not ideal, but when trying to get developers on board after a fork, using GitHub and using the same license as the original avoids spending innov…

> innovation tokens / weirdness budget

I find it amusing that you called it "weirdness budget", but then again that pretty accurately describes the feeling I get when I see someone using a fairly niche DB instead of something like PostgreSQL, or something like NixOS instead of a regular Ubuntu LTS or RHEL-like. Not that it's a bad thing, there's plenty of specific use cases out there for sure.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#58

Post by Macha »

gadders wrote: post #27
kryptiskt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redis Labs didn't start Redis, they didn't contribute most of the code. They just own the trademark. They have about as much right to extract money from AWS and Google for Redis as I have, all they are doing is that they are hijacking an open source project to make themselves rich. They're not a victim of the cloud providers, they are a leech trying to make a score while fucking over all the other contributors to Red…

This makes more sense as an explanation. Are there any instances where an SSPL license or similar is warranted?

If you want to release your project for the first time as SSPL, go right ahead. You may have difficulty getting adoption however.

It's the "build your userbase on open source, then lock them in" that bothers people.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#60

Post by treprinum »

marcinzm wrote: post #55
treprinum wrote: post #50

Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.

There's nothing idealistic involved. Startups want users more than they want revenue. Thus they open source it, use VC money to cover the loses and then eventually try to squeeze those users for money. Redis Labs also did not in any way make Redis. They came in later to exploit the already open source project for their own benefit.

Ok, I was mistaken then. I thought Redis Labs folks created Redis initially.
Post reply on HN