141–150 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-launc... > Industry participants, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, Oracle, Ericsson, and Snap Inc. are supporting Valkey.
Interesting to see Google there. They have LevelDB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question of what constitutes a "service" seems very murky, and although it's obviously not the intention of all these source-available, BSL style things, in a dark timeline it seems like there's a lot of room for litigious actors to behave very badly. The uncertainty is what makes it scary, I'd also like a lot more clarity.
The good thing about this is that since the companies are copyright holder of the code, if this creates issues, the licenses can be rewritten and modified in order to be as sharp as possible in the use cases they want to avoid (which is... two/three users in the world :D).
It doesn't matter how good your intentions are, in the long run, it's not you or Redis, inc. we have to trust, it's anyone who potentially inherits the rights of these licensed IPs, at which point the courts will not rule on what your feelings are of what the license was meant to do but instead what was actually written and agreed to. That's why an existing, well-understood and symmetrical copyright license is going to beat out weirdo "business" licenses any day, and why they will never be considered OSI-compliant, which is fine, because if we all really hated big tech they're already allergic to the AGPL anyway.
I know I'm not going to score any points by disagreeing with you here of all places, but I genuinely wonder if you really do believe this or if you mostly just don't care to actually confront the reality.
This whole thing could be a nothingburger forever, or, alternatively, Redis, Inc. could some day be acquired by Oracle. Absolutely no way for any of us to know for sure. Unfortunately, that leaves me with little other option but to stick to the forks.
For me, the license change upset me mainly for two reasons: 1. Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc - and when they did that it was under the understanding that project would remain under the same open source license. It honestly felt like a betrayal of trust. 2. From a purely selfish point…
"Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc" I can understand that, but the thing about the BSD license is that such value never gets lost. People are able to fork, and after a fork for the original project to still lead will be require to put something more on the table. Inside Redis it was tried…
Folks like to cite MongoDB as some great example, but Redis had significant community contributions in recent years. And AWS never used any Mongo code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc" I can understand that, but the thing about the BSD license is that such value never gets lost. People are able to fork, and after a fork for the original project to still lead will be require to put something more on the table. Inside Redis it was tried…
With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone . Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many of the Redis developers left to form Valkey What's the point of spreading informations that are not true? I believe there is a single person that was in Redis and works there now, at least AFAIK. And this person stopped working at Redis long time ago (and was not a core developer). So I'm not understanding who joined ValKey from Redis folks. Everybody is working at Redis: me, Oran, Yossi, Meir, many others.
> I believe there is a single person that was in Redis and works there now, at least AFAIK. And this person stopped working at Redis long time ago (and was not a core developer). It is probably more correct to say a bunch of Redis contributors left the Redis GitHub project and moved over to Valkey. You can see there are a bunch of contributors listed on this page who seem to predate the fork and who have continued to…
Hehehe, Reading between the lines. Redis is Hurting, Valkey is making a real difference at pulling the customers away. Elastic and OpenSearch were in similar situation, so Elastic went on to change license back to (more restrictive) Open Source License. Redis went different route by bringing Redis founder back. I wonder if they go back on their license change next or do they think Redis founder endorsing license chan…
Except this is not true: I mean, I asked to rejoin, not because I evaluated the situation of the company, but since I wanted to do more hacking / community stuff. So you see what happens trying to read too much between the lines? That you invent what satisfies your needs as a reader, but drives you away from what actually happened. P.S. at Redis they didn't expected this at all and were really surprised. And about sw…
I appreciate your honesty in disclosing what you still have Redis Labs stock, and assuming it is anything reasonable their value at future IPO would be much larger than any cash compensation which you might be getting as the part of the deal.
Reality is you did not fulfil (chose to or could not, I do not know) your public promise to keep Redis Open Source https://antirez.com/news/120
I hope your return will positively impact Redis as Open Source Project. Yet I'm disappointed to read your position on the Redis License - seeing cloud non compete license "basically as good as open source", as I far as I'm concern for many users which want to have software ran for them, and consume it as DBaaS it is no different to proprietary license, as it prevents competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone . Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole…
It is really hard to believe that no one defends antirez&co as protecting themselves from greedy overpriced SaaS businesses who were parasiting others hard work. What about them saases breaking a social contract of giving reasonable prices adequate to the effort put into a product (or a wrapper around the product)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Linux Foundation is a mouthpiece of the closed source, trillion dollar hyperscalers. They're using the deceptive good feels to stop you from questioning their fat margins. Why isn't the entire stack of AWS infra open source, again? Open source has been twisted against us. The big players know where the money and value and power accumulates.
> Why isn't the entire stack of AWS infra open source, again? This line of argument is untethered from reality. The Linux Foundation actually is the parent of the Cloud Native Computing Foundation ( https://www.cncf.io/about/join/ ), which actually is infrastructure for cloud services: containers, envoy, etcd, helm, istio, Kubernetes, prometheus, etc.
You had a business that was acquired by Amazon. I don't know if you're giving this a fair assessment.
When the copyright holders of large open source infrastructure projects want revenue from their hard work, Amazon forks them or provides funding to their direct competitors.
Amazon can strategically launch free and open source competition to commercialized open source products as a means of keeping more of the cloud spend budget for themselves.
The hyperscalers want to commoditize anything that impinges upon their margins. The software should be free, it should run on their clouds, and it should lead to increased cloud spending. Other companies shouldn't dip their hands into the pot.
Moreover, hyperscalers get to hoover up "managed" versions of open source software and collect even thicker margins. Redis, Elasticsearch, etc. fly in the face of this strategy, which is why they attack it so relentlessly.
The Linux Foundation and CNCF serve its industry contributors. The microservice ecosystem is booming business for AWS, Azure, and GCP.
I don't see how this is "untethered from reality". This is cutthroat business, and it's how the trillion dollar companies throw their weight around.
If you build open source infrastructure products and don't have an anti-cloud provision, you'll get picked clean by the hyperscalers.
Will be interesting to see how the Valkey community reacts to this
Valkey maintainer here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I worked with antirez a bit before he left the project in 2020, and I still look fondly back on that time since he was a wonderful person and he helped me learn a lot. I wish he had considered coming to work with Valkey instead of Redis, but maybe we'll find some some way to work together that benefits both communities.
Note though it is not certain he even could - the Non Compete when you have significant compensation in cash or equity can be much stronger and run a lot longer than employment related
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc" I can understand that, but the thing about the BSD license is that such value never gets lost. People are able to fork, and after a fork for the original project to still lead will be require to put something more on the table. Inside Redis it was tried…
With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone . Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole…
But before that the community turned its back on Redis Ltd., when it let those cloud offerings from others thrive. Once the “community” got that going, these consequences were inevitable.