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

81–90 of 178 posts

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

#81

Post by benterix »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
skywhopper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Yes, Linux and Git are GPL-ed, so the parent is asking if you also feel about them in the same way as about this Redis fork ("needlessly ideological", "have strings attached" etc.).

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

#82

Post by crabmusket »

Everyone's discussing the license and the hosting, but I think this is the truly interesting differentiator:

> In technical terms, we are focusing on stability and long-term maintenance, and on achieving excellence within our current scope. We believe that Redict is near feature-complete and that it is more valuable to our users if we take a conservative stance to innovation and focus on long-term reliability instead. This is in part a choice we’ve made to distinguish ourselves from Valkey, whose commercial interests are able to invest more resources into developing more radical innovations, but also an acknowledgement of a cultural difference between our projects, in that the folks behind Redict place greater emphasis on software with a finite scope and ambitions towards long-term stability rather than focusing on long-term growth in scope and complexity.

It'll be interesting to see what Valkey's future is with the maintainers having some lofty goals, and expressing frustration that they weren't able to move fast enough or be innovative enough under Redis. As a small-time user of Redis I kind of like the idea that I could just have what I've got now, but with a promise that someone's looking after it. I don't feel the need for millions of transactions per second, a timeseries database, etc.

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

#83

Post by endisneigh »

ksec wrote: post #78
endisneigh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached. So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux? Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.

Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness.

If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left.

It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is.

My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.

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

#84

Post by stavros »

zwaps wrote: post #16
drewdevault wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LGPL is a pretty weak copyleft license and was chosen specifically because it is amenable to almost all present-day commercial use-cases for Redis. You don't have to publish your changes to Redict in most situations, commercial or not. Check out the FAQ here: https://redict.io/docs/license/

"Tip: Commercial and non-commercial users of Redict are not required to publish or otherwise “open source” the source code of Redict, including any private modifications they make to the source code" And very next section: "If you compile Redict’s source code into an executable form and distribute this executable form to others you are required to include a copy of the Redict source code and any modifications to it l…

It's a massive stretch to read "distributing the executable to people" as "distributing derivative works by somehow using this service in your network". The language is very clear.

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

#85

Post by endisneigh »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #80
endisneigh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Redict is LGPL, a less restrictive GPL allowing linking to projects with other licenses.

Yes, but Redis was even less restrictive to begin with.

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

#87

Post by margorczynski »

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.

And that's a good thing as it will provide a steady mechanism to fund the project. Of course there is the risk that it will result in an "open-core" model where the open source part is artificially slowed down to promote the commercial offering.

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

#89

Post by datascienced »

Macha wrote: post #32
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, so anyone can just start a company with the name of an open source project and try to monetise it? Like someone could start e.g. "Rust Labs" and sell a commercial version of Rust? I don't know much about the genesis of Redis or Redis Labs, who key people and dates are, etc. I guess this obfuscation is part of the problem.

> Like someone could start e.g. "Rust Labs" and sell a commercial version of Rust? No, because the Rust trademark guidelines prohibit that ( https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-me... ) In Redis Labs case, they acquired the Redis trademark from the original author, who they employed for a few years after the project was well established.

[flagged]

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

#90

Post by drewdevault »

endisneigh wrote: post #83
ksec wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached. So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux? Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.

Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. If someone gave you something the correct presumption would be that you can do as you like with it, unless - and what follows are strings, like copy left. It isn’t inherently bad, but it is what it is. My happiness with Linux is irrelevant because Linux to my knowledge was not re licensed to be more restrictive.

> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness.

I have answered a similar line of questioning before.

Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from obligations. Copyleft is the sort of active freedom which presents as a guarantee of rights.

Post reply on HN