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

171–178 of 178 posts

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

#171

Post by dartos »

stavros wrote: post #84
zwaps wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

What would you consider a website?

Is minimized JavaScript considered an executable?

What about html and css?

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

#172

Post by stavros »

dartos wrote: post #171
stavros wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What would you consider a website? Is minimized JavaScript considered an executable? What about html and css?

How would you compile Redict's source code into a website? And if you somehow did, it would be an executable, yes.

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

#173

Post by crabmusket »

reconditerose wrote: post #154
crabmusket wrote: post #82

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…

Hey, I am one of the maintainers of Valkey, I'll try to answer. I think there is a few things I would like to see in the mid to short term. We're trying to make a lot of the core datastructures more efficient (both in terms of memory and performance) as well as the main dictionary. Valkey 8.0 (or whatever first major version we have) will have lower overhead per key-value pair. Multithreading performance is nice, but…

Thanks for your work Madelyn and I wish you and the team the best of good fortune!

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

#174

Post by dani0854 »

drewdevault wrote: post #46
frant-hartm wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> legal department works for you, not the other way around. Not sure what planet you live on. Unless you are one of the execs, Legal (and other compliance departments like HR) work pretty much against you. They exist to protect the company and the exec team.

They exist to serve the bottom line, and if the bottom line is best served by evaluating and approving the LGPL license (a trivial task, as it is broadly understood and the compliance requirements are negligible for most users), then that's what they will do. And in any case, no one is categorically opposed to the LGPL. Unless you think that no one is using Linux in industry, given that it uses a stronger license (GP…

> And in any case, no one is categorically opposed to the LGPL.

That's not exactly true, take android as an example, which has a policy of "no GPL in user space", if I recall correctly.

I do however believe that due to drivers and other things, GPL is beneficial in Linux kernel, but that rather an exception. And also Linux is GPLv2, which is a big difference to GPLv3 (and so to LGPLv3).

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

#175

Post by ksec »

drewdevault wrote: post #116
ksec wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is off topic. I am going to assume this isn't impersonation, but Drew what happen to your old HN account? ( I had it on RSS feed and hasn't shown any update for ages I thought you left HN )

I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I lost the password to my old account.

>I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion.

I meant off topic as in asking you question about your account. Not the Open Source discussions which is of course perfectly valid. Sorry for the confusion.

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

#176

Post by verdverm »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #138
hobs wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know why this is downvoted, I have endlessly heard corp lawyers say this to my face while I worked there. I have had a "popular" open source library I contributed significantly to campaigned by Microsoft to change the license to MIT, and the founder and creator decided to relicense without getting any sign offs because they felt that nobody would get mad enough to sue them.

The only thing stopping a commercial product from using copyleft software is themselves, not the copyleft. Lawyers entire job is to make convincing arguments for any position you want, by artfully speaking only true facts, no matter what the position is and no matter what the facts are. Of course a lawyer can and will say that you "can't" let any gpl software pollute the companys product "because the gpl prevents it"…

Corp lawyers job is to derisk and protect the company.

Strong copyleft risks converting private IP into something that must be shared publicly. This is what these licenses are designed to do. Blanket bans on specific licenses makes sense because they don't have the time to evaluate every potential case or usage

How many of the copyleft projects actually have a commercial offering or paid support plan?

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

#177

Post by Brian_K_White »

verdverm wrote: post #176
Brian_K_White wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing stopping a commercial product from using copyleft software is themselves, not the copyleft. Lawyers entire job is to make convincing arguments for any position you want, by artfully speaking only true facts, no matter what the position is and no matter what the facts are. Of course a lawyer can and will say that you "can't" let any gpl software pollute the companys product "because the gpl prevents it"…

Corp lawyers job is to derisk and protect the company. Strong copyleft risks converting private IP into something that must be shared publicly. This is what these licenses are designed to do. Blanket bans on specific licenses makes sense because they don't have the time to evaluate every potential case or usage How many of the copyleft projects actually have a commercial offering or paid support plan?

Who said anything about a commercial or paid support plan?

The price the corp doesn't want to pay isn't money.

There are no potential edge cases to worry about if you aren't trying to live on renting copies of the same software to many people in the first place. Then you can live it even greater safety with no need to even audit anything.

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

#178

Post by aragilar »

prionassembly wrote: post #98
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.

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 en…

Mozilla Corp is (solely) owned by Mozilla Org.
Post reply on HN