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

91–100 of 178 posts

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

#91

Post by wyldfire »

endisneigh wrote: post #69

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? 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.

> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.

The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict picked (LGPL 3.0). It is incorrect to try and lump this in with source-available licenses that are IMO anathema to Open Source.

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

#92

Post by yunohn »

verdverm wrote: post #33
tormeh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most commercial projects can safely use any of the Redis forks, whether Redis itself, Redict or Valkey. For Redict, you have to provide the source code of Redict - and Redict only! - in the case that you distribute it to customers. Redis has harsher terms, but only if you provide Redis-as-a-service. If you aren't a cloud provider and you don't modify the code of your chosen Redis variant, this is all a big nothingbur…

Open source seems to be doing fine without the clarity. Even fields that have nothing to do with software are adopting the mindset. The movement only gains in steam

Most popular OSS projects use Apache and MIT in my experience, precisely because GPLs are problematic for commercial usage and contributions from employed people.

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

#93

Post by endisneigh »

drewdevault wrote: post #90
endisneigh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with.

A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.

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

#94

Post by falcor84 »

endisneigh wrote: post #69

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? 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.

As another comment mentioned, copyleft would prevent commits to this project from being merged into Redis, intentionally making this a "hard fork". I do think it's ideological, but it's doesn't seem needless to me - there is a real ideological battle to be fought here.

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

#95

Post by drewdevault »

yunohn wrote: post #92
verdverm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source seems to be doing fine without the clarity. Even fields that have nothing to do with software are adopting the mindset. The movement only gains in steam

Most popular OSS projects use Apache and MIT in my experience, precisely because GPLs are problematic for commercial usage and contributions from employed people.

This is a common misconception and source of fear/uncertainty/doubt regarding copyleft licenses. It's true that, the stronger the copyleft license, the more obligations it imposes on companies, and the AGPL is perhaps the most onerous of all and thus the least attractive to businesses. But, copyleft exists on a spectrum, and there are thousands of big-ticket FOSS projects that tens of thousands of businesses depend on and make use of that have a copyleft license. Linux itself is GPL, and pretty much everyone depends on it.

The license for Redict is one of the weaker copyleft licenses and should not pose any onerous compliance obligations on the most common commercial use-cases for Redict.

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

#96

Post by endisneigh »

wyldfire wrote: post #91
endisneigh wrote: post #69

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? 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.

> Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached. The term 'Open Source' is well-defined and includes licenses like the one redict picked (LGPL 3.0). It is incorrect to try and lump this in with source-available licenses that are IMO anathema to Open Source.

The OSI doesn’t represent everyone.

It’s simply a fact that MIT for instance allows things like Redict and this discussion to take place, as well as other things. It is maximally permissive.

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

#97

Post by drewdevault »

endisneigh wrote: post #93
drewdevault wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.

A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.*

* Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.

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

#98

Post by prionassembly »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #28
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…

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.

There's some point in which good faith rules apply, probably even in court (although not decisively). Presumably Redis Labs works with the developer community and, critically, promotes the technology, which adds great value in terms of network effects. This is sort of the situation with Mozilla.org/com, right?

(Say you like something like Elm -- wouldn't it be better to have a relatively closely aligned commercial entity that puts significant and effective effort in making it widely used, which in turns makes it easier to find an Elm job or sell Elm-like solutions as a consultant).

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

#99

Post by endisneigh »

drewdevault wrote: post #97
endisneigh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree - Redict is only possible because of the permissive license to begin with. A hypothetical license that said no forks allowed wouldn’t allow Redict, for instance.

A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.

I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.

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

#100

Post by [deleted] »

endisneigh wrote: post #99
drewdevault wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as they use the LGPL for their fork.* * Technically you do have more options than this with the LGPL but this is a layman's explanation.

I did not say it would be an open source license. My point is simply that Redict takes something more permissive and makes it restrictive, which is true.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN