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

Redis is open source again

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#361

Post by ahartmetz »

gschizas wrote: post #279
giancarlostoro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft made one called Garnet, I wouldn't say its a fork though, its basically compatible with Redis and implemented mostly in C#. It supports the RESP wire protocol from Redis for ease of compatibility. https://github.com/microsoft/garnet

Nice. I've been using Memurai ( https://www.memurai.com/ ) for development on Windows (native, no WSL or Docker - for reasons), but this looks much better. EDIT: Weird that being a program from Microsoft (well, it's Microsoft Research, so that probably explains it?) it has no installer and doesn't run as a service on its own.

Conventional wisdom from 10 years ago on HN is that Microsoft Research just pays some top researchers (with commercially interesting, err, interests) to keep doing their thing. I wouldn't distrust anyone from there based on their employer. That is from someone who doesn't trust MSFT very far.

Re: Redis is open source again

#362

Post by hn_acc1 »

Alupis wrote: post #293
glenngillen wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"

> source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source. If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should…

You are free to fork their code, add your fix, open a bug-tracking system, start a forum, guarantee response times, etc to "help the community".

Not everyone has time for a second or third full-time job.

Re: Redis is open source again

#363

Post by em-bee »

skrebbel wrote: post #318
eduction wrote: post #263

I'm always grateful for open source code, but on AGPL I can only quote the lawyer Kyle Mitchell: "Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke..." "It’s not just hard for lawyers, who have the legal picture and can parse the whole license very carefully without passing out...It’s also hard for hackers, even those familiar with free software lore, who lack the legal side o…

This is the first time I read about OSL3 ( https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php ). I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty. But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution"…

how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back

it doesn't. but neither does the AGPL. the only reason companies avoid the AGPL is because the AGPL stipulates that anything that the software is integrated with must be distributed as well. they are avoiding the GPL for the same reason. i don't know if the OSL does that too. if it doesn't then it would be less protective than the AGPL.

the AGPL works to prevent competition because companies are scared of it, but that was not its intention. none of the GPL licenses are intended to prevent competition without giving back.

and that is the real problem that redis and other companies are facing: how can we share source with our users without allowing well funded competitors to eat our lunch.

there are several experimental licenses that are trying to address that problem, among others, FUTO is working on that, as is bruce perens. but so far no clear choice has emerged. and unfortunately many see the idea of limiting competition as against the spirit of FOSS. personally, i think that needs to change.

Re: Redis is open source again

#364

Post by kodablah »

jimbokun wrote: post #316
lolinder wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy that justification. These two companies (and the others like them) set up a model for funding their business knowing full well that they would have to compete with others who were able to provide the same service they were. That's always been baked into FOSS—you can't plan around a monopoly when you're releasing your code for free, that's part of the trade-off you make. When AWS and Co did provide hosting…

There is no possible way to compete against someone else who doesn't need to fund the development of the software but can still take in all the revenues and profits from deploying it as a service.

Not true, you can compete with the quality of the deployed service _separate_ from the development of the software. The quality of the service can include internal, at-scale optimizations that don't affect user-facing parity with the open-source software.

Open source companies with SaaS offerings need to have plans to differentiate themselves on hosting quality, not features. Yes, you can do better at hosting your own product than Amazon in many cases with customized, closed-source optimizations (that are unrelated to feature parity and does not intentionally limit the open-source/self-hosted form), support, etc.

Re: Redis is open source again

#365

Post by gschizas »

ahartmetz wrote: post #361
gschizas wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice. I've been using Memurai ( https://www.memurai.com/ ) for development on Windows (native, no WSL or Docker - for reasons), but this looks much better. EDIT: Weird that being a program from Microsoft (well, it's Microsoft Research, so that probably explains it?) it has no installer and doesn't run as a service on its own.

Conventional wisdom from 10 years ago on HN is that Microsoft Research just pays some top researchers (with commercially interesting, err, interests) to keep doing their thing. I wouldn't distrust anyone from there based on their employer. That is from someone who doesn't trust MSFT very far.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't distrust them, it's just that some projects that come out of Microsoft Research are more rough around the edges!

Re: Redis is open source again

#366

Post by rs999gti »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #53
c0l0 wrote: post #33

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…

Microsoft made one called Garnet, I wouldn't say its a fork though, its basically compatible with Redis and implemented mostly in C#. It supports the RESP wire protocol from Redis for ease of compatibility. https://github.com/microsoft/garnet

Wow. First time hearing about Garnet. MS should package and deploy it as a service in the Azure SAAS offerings.

Re: Redis is open source again

#367

Post by echelon »

lolinder wrote: post #225
c0l0 wrote: post #33

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…

Yeah, we just did this whole ride with Elastic [0]: company changes the license out from under the community, community revolts, company gives up and changes it back. Both companies even pulled the same "it worked" excuse ("while it was painful, it worked", "this achieved our goal"). Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later and both companies have sh…

This keeps happening:

1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS.

2. Some people in the community (original authors, community leads) make a company around the database and continue developing it for years on end. They sometimes raise venture capital to expand the business.

3. Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.

4. The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee.

5. Amazon / Google / Microsoft fork the database. The community revolts. Sometimes the people revolting are employees of the hyperscalers, other times these are just FOSS fans that hate "source available" licenses or relicensing.

6. Database company is forced to walk back the changes. Still no revenue.

---

The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat.

Basically your license needs one of a few things if you want to prevent Amazon from walking off with your money:

- A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright.

- A MAU / ARR clause such that hyperscalers are in the blast radius. Note that this also hits your customers.

Re: Redis is open source again

#368

Post by [deleted] »

gigatexal wrote: post #357
c0l0 wrote: post #33

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…

I get the feeling. I also live in the real world and know that nobody except for a few (most notably RedHat) have figured out how to make sustainable money in open source. These closed licenses didn’t come out of nowhere. They came in response to places like AWS using the open source license to make a mint with a project — and doing so legally (it’s there in the license to do so) — but then the project suffers. So th…

[deleted]

Re: Redis is open source again

#369

Post by blibble »

echelon wrote: post #367
lolinder wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we just did this whole ride with Elastic [0]: company changes the license out from under the community, community revolts, company gives up and changes it back. Both companies even pulled the same "it worked" excuse ("while it was painful, it worked", "this achieved our goal"). Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later and both companies have sh…

This keeps happening: 1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS. 2. Some people in the community (original authors, community leads) make a company around the database and continue developing it for years on end. They sometimes raise venture capital to expand the business. 3. Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily mill…

the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers

which is sort of funny because the term "Open Source" was itself coined to make it possible for people to seek funding to build companies based on the (crazy?) idea of producing software, then giving away its source code

20 years later, the structure of the industry has now changed, and now "Open Source" exists to feed Amazon, Microsoft and Google

if it's not possible to alter the definition to include licenses that include terms that allow sustainable value creation for businesses other than the hyperscalers, then the term is no longer fit for purpose, and we need a new one

"Fair Software"?

Re: Redis is open source again

#370

Post by jopsen »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #167

So with redis being AGPL, who counts as a user? If you have a webapp that uses redis on the backend for a task queue, do the users of the webapp count as users of redis, and you then have to provide source to redis? Is there a chance that you might have to release your apps code to be compliant?

I just read the AGPL and the FAQs and it's not entirely clear to me either.

Probably why many companies find AGPL toxic.

Post reply on HN