I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.) I have a great deal of respect for ant…
Likewise. Respect for antirez and all of that he is doing, but his hiring back feels like just trying to lure developers back after ridiculous move by the Redis corporation. Given there are viable alternatives out there, I see no reason why someone should invest any time in Redis (we are using Valkey as a replacement).
Redis is open source again
281–290 of 815 posts
Re: Redis is open source again
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statistically nobody is using valkey.
If you use the latest versions of Redis, you are benefiting from the continued efforts of the Valkey development community. [1] This is Open Source working well. Unfortunately, the reverse flow does not work. [1] https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/13638
Did they maintain the author's copyright notice as required by BSD-3?
Re: Redis is open source again
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people switched to Valkey and didn't even know it. A lot like how many users are using MariaDB but think they are using MySQL. Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.
Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.
Re: Redis is open source again
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident. I have no idea what the actual stats are. But no, I don't find your "statistically 0%" to be self-evident, especially in light of the other comments and links in this thread, and what I've heard elsewhere. I was hoping, since you presented it so confidently, that you had something more than "trust…
Their stats are "I asked an LLM", no, that's not joke, see this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43860256
Re: Redis is open source again
#285Re: Redis is open source again
#286I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.) I have a great deal of respect for ant…
How does this work legally? You write some code, contribute it under a certain license... and... a company can just re-license your code under any license they like?
Re: Redis is open source again
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, Simon. I believe that cases like Elastic and Redis returning back to an open source license is like writing on the rock: "open source won", at least in the system software space. Companies get created, prosper and fail over time, but this message is here to stay with us for a long time, and shapes the society of tomorrow. It's a win of the software community itself.
It's a win for the community over and against the corporations that are Redis and Elastic. They're not the good guys for giving in to the pressure. They tried to ride FOSS to prominence and then extract wealth on the backs of the community and found that the community mattered more than they did. So sure, let's celebrate, but celebrate the community, not those who tried to pull the rug out from under them.
Re: Redis is open source again
#288Earlier 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…
Re: Redis is open source again
#289I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.) I have a great deal of respect for ant…
> contributed a minor improvement to Redis under its original license [...] feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase How does this work legally? You write some code, contribute it under a certain license... and... a company can just re-license your code under any license they like?
[0] https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...
Re: Redis is open source again
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many people switched to Valkey and didn't even know it. A lot like how many users are using MariaDB but think they are using MySQL. Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.
Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.