Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From where I left

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 472 posts

Re: From where I left

#201

Post by fweimer »

jcgrillo wrote: post #79
simonw wrote: post #68

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…

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.

No one is expected to use any of the code licensed in this way commercially. You enter a contract with the vendor, tell them what you need, and negotiate a price. At that point, it doesn't really matter what the copyright license says.

Re: From where I left

#202

Post by inopinatus »

collingreen wrote: post #200
inopinatus wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this matter, that pretty phrase “social contract” is at root a demand for ego massage from a) contributors that don’t actually believe in the freewheeling spirit of the BSD/MIT licenses but used it anyway, and b) noncontributors whose sense of entitlement is projecting as loss aversion. The revised license is nevertheless a problem for component selection. Usage caveats are a landmine and thereby a coherent motiva…

"A demand for ego massage" is a pretty rude way to try to dismiss away someone's expressed feeling about something they cared about fundamentally changing. I think it's a stretch to attack everyone who liked the idea of a totally open license as either disingenuous or selfish.

I agree, it would be, so I take issue with the extreme interpretation of the remark. These are merely two cases of foolishness. The first is of one’s choices not actually being in harmony with one’s preferences, the latter is simply a common cognitive bias. I’m not characterising talk of a “social contact” as malicious, but naive. Folks who want community obligations attached to their contributions can and probably should choose a copyleft license. Realising this in hindsight is a matter of personal growth.

I advise against relating to software as an emotional construct. Certainly for noncontributors but also even for contributors and primary authors. Redis is not your cat.

Re: From where I left

#203

Post by collingreen »

antirez wrote: post #109
fishtoaster wrote: post #80

I'm really interested in this bit: "the fracture with the community is not about licensing, or at least it’s not mainly about licensing" I wish he'd elaborated a bit more on what he thought it was about. My understanding is that it's 100% about the license. That's certainly why I'll reach for valkey instead of redis next time I need it. That's also what I've heard from everyone else in a similar position. What else w…

For somebody, like you and many others, it was very important to retain an OSI license. But I feel that in general given that the new license is IMHO good for almost every user, from the POV of what they can do with the code, and that the cloud situation was quite self evident, I believe that with better communication, and immediate developments/merges in the core, to counter balance the license switch, many people w…

Thanks for directly expanding on this.

Re: From where I left

#204

Post by weinzierl »

openthc wrote: post #188

Another thing that kinds of sucks about this whole "license rug-pull" kind of business is that other teams (like ours) who are publishing open-source software/tools are now suspects too. Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved? Folk can't take us at face-value (I'd argue demonstrated value) and level (unfounded) accusations at us; because some othe…

"Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved?"

You put MIT or GPL in the same bucket here, but really shouldn't because the difference is all that matters.

There is no "rug-pull" as you call it. What happened with Redis is what the BSD license allows and what people should expect to happen.

The combination of GPL (or AGPL) with a large enough and diverse set of contributors who keep their rights in their contributions is a proven way to prevent what happened with Redis.

It is our decision as publishers of open-source projects which way we want to go. It is our decision as contributors which open-source projects we support.

Both ways are fine, but blaming others that you regret your decision is not.

Re: From where I left

#205

Post by collingreen »

strbean wrote: post #177
PeterZaitsev wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. I've seen people seen/write all kind of stuff when serious money are involved, and I also was offered to just just that on number of occasions. 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 f…

It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their modifications". The hosted vs. distributed loophole is just that, a loophole. If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little i…

This opinion seems to require the idea that targeted license changes that are intentionally devastating (going from "do anything" to requiring relicensing all/some of your stack) will only ever be used against "the bad guys" tm and OF COURSE we agree on who "the bad guys" tm are and OF COURSE that will never be me or you _trust me bro_.

Feels like a cliche "first they came for the richest saas providers and we said nothing..."

Re: From where I left

#207

Post by collingreen »

antirez wrote: post #164
seqizz wrote: post #160

I think people are not afraid of the current change on licensing, but the magic is broken as soon as a company starts wandering around. Yes the current license is not that bad, but while we have valkey on the side now, how can I trust "Redis Inc." will not decide another small change which does not affect me, then the next one, until it makes something which does affect me.

> how can I trust "Redis Inc." will not decide another small change which does not affect me Good point: the key is that, starting from now, Redis Inc. should make small changes that positively affect you.

Is this snarky or real? If real, how would this work? If snarky, then :(

Re: From where I left

#208

Post by pydry »

kstrauser wrote: post #195
pydry wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is weird. The one restriction is one you probably dont care about because you're not amazon or azure yet some people still freak out like youve taken their toys away. Truly odd.

It's not that weird. With a FOSS license, I know I can use a program for anything I choose to and the terms will never change. I might launch a startup with a friend tomorrow using a package and complying with its license terms, and a million dollars later we're still legally entitled to use it. Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope. The restrictions Redis added aren't directly onerous to 99.999…

Your answer is "it's not that weird what if I wanted to launch a startup competing with azure and amazon"?

Well, Id say in that case youve got waaaay bigger problems than a license.

>Adding constraints later is a non-fallacious slippery slope.

No, it's very much a fallacious slippery slope. Constraints are the very essence of licenses and contracts.

Re: From where I left

#209

Post by skinner_ »

jart wrote: post #194
collingreen wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you should conflate CONTROL with resentment or distaste or feeling betrayed or feeling misled. They aren't the same.

Even without a CLA, Redis was originally licensed BSD. Releasing code under a BSD license is making a promise that you are OK with people using your code for commercial purposes. If you as a developer express personal feelings of dissatisfaction that someone is doing with your gift what you gave them permission to do, in such a way that could be construed as reneging on your promise, then that would make you dishonor…

> in such a way that could be construed as reneging on your promise

Nothing could be construed in such a way, because such a reneging is not possible.

Re: From where I left

#210

Post by collingreen »

inopinatus wrote: post #202
collingreen wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A demand for ego massage" is a pretty rude way to try to dismiss away someone's expressed feeling about something they cared about fundamentally changing. I think it's a stretch to attack everyone who liked the idea of a totally open license as either disingenuous or selfish.

I agree, it would be, so I take issue with the extreme interpretation of the remark. These are merely two cases of foolishness. The first is of one’s choices not actually being in harmony with one’s preferences, the latter is simply a common cognitive bias. I’m not characterising talk of a “social contact” as malicious, but naive. Folks who want community obligations attached to their contributions can and probably s…

I'm ruffled by your repeated dismissals and arrogance BUT now I really want to name a pet redis so maybe you're coming out ahead in my personal calculus.

You taking issue with my "extreme interpretation" seems like a bad faith statement. Perhaps you really do feel mistreated by it; if that's the case I'm sorry because my intent is directly addressing the language you're using but not you personally.

To ape some of your phrasing, I advise against taking offense when others disagree with your approach or severity when you are attacking strangers, dismissing their reactions, gatekeeping who should get to care, patronizing them about personal growth, and calling them foolish at best.

Post reply on HN