61–70 of 178 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are upset because Redis is not open source anymore. That is all.
Is this like a Richard Stallman ideological thing? (EDIT: Genuine question - I'm trying to understand if this is a license purity issue or something else).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valkey is under the Linux foundation umbrella, and I assume will be developed by the same people who were previously making redis. I could not find who is behind predict.
It's worth noting that the Linux Foundation is a commercial consortium and the companies behind Valkey contribute over $1M to its annual budget.
That on top of developer hours dedicated to various projects, which are probably worth multiple millions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth noting that the Linux Foundation is a commercial consortium and the companies behind Valkey contribute over $1M to its annual budget.
> contribute over $1M to its annual budget That on top of developer hours dedicated to various projects, which are probably worth multiple millions.
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.
Then, another company that is offering a hosted Redis and support hires antirez and so becomes the 'offical' Redis company.
In 2020 antirez leaves and goes and writes a novel (called "Wohpe") instead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redis_(company)#History
Antirez hasn't been involved in Redis in a long time.
This is a common enough pattern when open-source projects leave their roots and then, eventually, alienate theiropen source base. Perhaps the time is ripe for Antirez to come back and shepherd one of the forks, a bit like mariadb?
I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Do BSD or MIT and be done with it.
It seems needlessly ideological. Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.