bro is entering his midlife crisis
From where I left
351–360 of 472 posts
Re: From where I left
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like your opinion is that the communication around the relicensing was the issue rather the relicensing itself, but from the standpoint of the people who decided there was enough of an issue to switch away from Redis, is that the case? As an outsider to the Redis community both before and after the schism, I don't know that you're wrong, but I have to imagine that if I were someone concerned enough to consi…
One thing is the normal user concerns, that are granted, and I understand and respect them. Another thing is forking, that in the specific case of ValKey was an effort whose impulse was provided by companies having an economic damage because of the license switch. So I think those are two orthogonal questions.
Hmm, I think I see. If I understand correctly, your opinion is that independent of the motivations of the forks, independent users switching to the forks could have been avoided with better communication? I guess that's a fair stance, although I'm not sure I fully agree with it. From what I can tell, there's a fairly large contingent of open source users who won't be happy with a license being changed to something they don't consider open source regardless of the rationale.
Re: From where I left
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It sounds like your opinion is that the communication around the relicensing was the issue rather the relicensing itself, but from the standpoint of the people who decided there was enough of an issue to switch away from Redis, is that the case? As an outsider to the Redis community both before and after the schism, I don't know that you're wrong, but I have to imagine that if I were someone concerned enough to consi…
How many, outside a few vocal voices, actually cares about the licensing? My company would choose Redis 100/100 times, because it's the known and trusted brand, and not some fork they've never even heard of. And the license change doesn't affect us in any way.
Additionally, I think it's a bit entitled to be so up in arms about a product everyone is using for free. There is a big issue with how open source is unmaintainable to do in our industry, and I applaud Redis' attempt at trying to fix it.
Re: From where I left
#354This piece, while providing context, makes me question basically everything about Redis, despite it's lovely API. Antirez extolling the virtue of the current LLM wave of hype coupled with his bizarre apologism for Redis Labs behavior is less strange than "why is this guy not 1)personally extremely wealthy 2)having reserved some key powers and control from Redis Labs from day1 such that he could have steered this, aka…
Why do you think they would be extremely wealthy, given it's a product they're giving away for free, and it was everyone else (like cloud providers) making money off of it?
Re: From where I left
#355Another 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…
What would you feel if you did all the work, but other companies made all the money by redistributing your software? Wouldn't you find that unmaintainable in the long run?
Re: From where I left
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Valkey also has the backing of The Linux Foundation. So maybe it just has a lot of backing in general. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-launc... BTW are you an employee of Redis? You seem to have created this account just to reply to me.
And who funds the Linux Foundation? - it is the CSPs themselves - https://chatgpt.com/share/67587e4c-bde8-800b-9f0a-fc824d3d6f... Any thoughts on CSPs making money from open source projects while the open source developers (e.g., Redis, Mongo, Hashi) suffer)?
No one organization in the world funds the LF in a way that is more than 1% of the total LF revenue... it has nearly ~2000 members across the world. You can usually get some of this from the LF Annual Report: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/resources/publications/linux...
Re: From where I left
#357I think Valkey now took over redis maintenance and I don't expect bigger users will reach out for Redis anymore. It seems like a better maintained project at this point. In my opinion, the licensing changed things permanently.
Re: From where I left
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, the reason for these changes is basically "prevent AWS from eating our business". Is that right? If so, are these trends harmful to open source? Are we not choosing between: 1. A world where all revenue in OSS infrastructure ultimately flows to a few big platform companies. 2. A world where these carve-outs are commonplace. Meta's carve-out with Llama is so interesting because it practically calls the big comp…
I think it comes down to the initial choice to make something open source. At that point you're well aware that big companies might use your code and profit more than you ever will. If you don't want that, don't open source and they will never use your code. It's having your cake and eating it when you get popular by being open source and then add restrictions when you have success. I think there should be a change t…
What is wrong with a non-commercial open source license for those that want to use your software for personal use and a paided up commercial license (something like Business Source License[1]) for the big tech corporations of the world?
How much open source software is being incorporated into closed source software and then being resold back to the original open source developers - to get an idea, check the licenses on a Apple phone (Settings -> General -> Legal & Regulatory -> Legal Notices)[2]. It's the who's who of open source licenses! I wonder how much Apple has contributed to those projects? Perhaps each FOSS developer mentioned there should receive - at least - a free iPhone ...
The argument of "social contract" or "moral rights" or whatever else a FOSS developer faces when changing their license to something that prevents BigTech making money off their work is unfair and unnecessary. Its their work, their choice. Just as politicians aren't held to the promises they made yesterday, so too are FOSS developers human and can change their direction/mind and license.
In addition to this, many have vested interests in these companies continuing their use of "free" (in the sense of money) software since they are themselves shareholders or employees. License fees effect the bottom line of those corporations. Imagine AWS paying a license fee for their Linux boxes ...
A corporation also has a "social contract" to fulfil, yet its the FOSS developer that needs to fulfil theirs first. Or perhaps a corporation only faces "legal contract" and for the sake of profit, a "social contract" isn't applicable to a corporation. In which case, neither should a "social contract" be applicable to a FOSS developer - when dealing with corporations.
[1] https://mariadb.com/bsl11/
[2] can also be viewed online --> https://gist.github.com/gorenje/a775f44bb9307852911f7f353466...
Re: From where I left
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you, but at the same time it was badly done. I’ve been referring to Redis as “a proprietary fork of Valkey,” and that message has clearly resonated.
Isn't that just lying?
Why? The original opensource lineage is valkey, it just changed the name. Redis is where the oss history forks and turns proprietary.
Re: From where I left
#360For 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…
What I dislike about the license change is that by trying to extract an extra dollar from Amazon&Google, the entire community gets hurt in the process.
Can I "dnf/apt install redis" on my Fedora or Debian install? I cannot, it's no longer packaged because it's no longer open source.
Can I go buy a shared hosting plan and get Redis? Or a small PaaS that sits on top of AWS? I cannot, because we have decided that every hoster is now as exploitative as Amazon, regardless of their margin.
For decades we lived in a world where someone could sell you an Apache server and a MySQL instance without having to pay money to Apache or MySQL. We can change that social contract, but like all tariffs, this one will be paid by the end users, not by the companies providing the service.
Disclaimer: I work for a PaaS.