171–180 of 815 posts
Sure, but the damage is done already, and it's AGPL too.
A bit more info from CEO: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ Sounds like SSPL did not yield the desired outcome. Glad AGPL is an option now.
While I applaud the effort to repair developer trust, do note that many organizations prohibit the use of AGPL. Linked below is Google's own stance on why AGPL is banned: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All advantage accrues to hyperscaler "managed" versions. That's so much more fucked than a rug pull. Amazon gets to make millions off of the thing you built. "Equitable source" licenses with MAU / ARR limits, hyperscaler resale limits, and AGPL-like "entire stack must be open" clauses is the way to go. It's a "fuck you" to Amazon, Google, and Microsoft in particular and leaves you untouched. Open source today is hype…
It's sad as an open source lover how money fucks it all
If you're okay with that, that's cool. But they'll profit off of your work and labor. And the worst part is that at scale, the advantages of the sum total of open source is used to compete with you and put price pressure on your salary and career options. To rephrase that, the hyperscalers are in a position to leverage open source to take advantage of market opportunities you cannot, and they can use that to compete with your business or competing businesses that might otherwise pay you better.
Open source needs anti-Google/Amazon/Microsoft clauses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So this is actually another case of the benefits ValKey got for being able to clone Redis, receiving money from the hyper-scalers that just want to maximize their revenues... I don't think you want to sling that mud, unless Redis switched to being a nonprofit when I wasn't looking.
They aren't really comparable and you know that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People and companies are allowed to change opinions, why would anyone blame Redis or Elastic instead of Amazon for taking it all?
Because Redis said they would never do something and then changed their mind (which makes the whole concept of saying you will never do something useless), while Amazon never said they wouldn’t use open source software for free (which is their right).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People and companies are allowed to change opinions, why would anyone blame Redis or Elastic instead of Amazon for taking it all?
Because Redis said they would never do something and then changed their mind (which makes the whole concept of saying you will never do something useless), while Amazon never said they wouldn’t use open source software for free (which is their right).
Never trust a company.
I'm curious whether the community will trust Redis-the-company again after this, or if they'll choose to stick with Valkey. The other concern is at least some big company legal departments are wary of AGPL software, which makes Valkey, still BSD, more attractive to them. Edit: Regardless, thank you and the rest of the folks inside Redis for pushing to bring this back to OSS!
Flagged for misleading headline. SSPL is open source. It's just not the open source you want. It meets all the criteria and the only difference from AGPL is how much source code you have to release and when - which is also the difference between GPL and AGPL. It has problems, but being closed source isn't one of them. The OSI will never certify it, of course, because that would go against the business interests of th…
This is not a widely accepted claim. I do not see SSPL as open source, and neither do OSI[0] or FSF[1] or Debian[2]. [0] https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html [2] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
The OSI is captured entirely by corporate sponsors. Amazon was paying a full-time salary a year to the OSI when the SSPL issue happened, the OSI had no ability to take a moral pro-labor stance without crippling their own operations. They still do not meaningfully answer to individual users: The OSI recently refused to disclose who won their board election and installed their preferred candidates.
And it will be inherently unethical to even consider the position of the FSF as long as it lacks the moral fortitude to permanently punt RMS from the board.
If the OSI wasn't owned by corporate interests, and had rightfully declared SSPL as a copyleft license... nobody would argue it isn't. The problem is we've let an extremely problematic organization "define" something in a way that does not serve our interests.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a widely accepted claim. I do not see SSPL as open source, and neither do OSI[0] or FSF[1] or Debian[2]. [0] https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html [2] https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/
We need to stop taking the OSI or FSF's positions on anything as particularly valuable. The OSI is captured entirely by corporate sponsors. Amazon was paying a full-time salary a year to the OSI when the SSPL issue happened, the OSI had no ability to take a moral pro-labor stance without crippling their own operations. They still do not meaningfully answer to individual users: The OSI recently refused to disclose who…