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

421–430 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#421

Post by mulmen »

lolinder wrote: post #392
echelon wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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. Yes, this would be the honest thing to do, but people don't do it because using a non-FOSS license loses you adoption. The step you're missing in your little timeline is that the only reason the pr…

What's missing is why open source won. It's impossible to be rug pulled. If the maintainers (this is a carefully chosen word) attempt a rug-pull you can just Elastic or Redis them. If the product is closed this is impossible and you're at the mercy of whoever you built on. Open Source is the ultimate right to repair. Everything is working as intended.

Re: Redis is open source again

#422

Post by Spivak »

aftbit wrote: post #350

From the CEO blog post - https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ >This achieved our goal—AWS and Google now maintain their own fork Was this really the goal though? Forcing your biggest users to fork your software and maintain their own divergent version is not really good for anyone. Sure, Amazon and Google (or AWS and GCP - type confusion in the source material) now have to contribute some more engineering hours to the open…

Yeah this take kind of surprised me, you really wanted Valkey to be the default option for cloud customers ensuring they'll have no migration path to your own offering? I just don't get it. You were getting $0 and now you're getting $0.

Re: Redis is open source again

#423

Post by tough »

papashell wrote: post #274
echelon wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does! The "problem" with AGPL3 is that it has no carve-out for companies smaller than Amazon, Microsoft, or Google. If you use AGPL, you have to open source your entire stack. Not everyone thinks infectious copyleft / free software is a problem. But it will mean that if you use AGPL3, every part of your stack has to be open. That doesn't work for everyone. This is why "equitable source" / "fair source" is gai…

AGPL doesn’t require you to open source the entire stack. Only the changes you made to the AGPL software if you interact with over a network AGPL does not and has not prevented hyperscalers from creating managed services for software licensed with it That’s why mongo created the server side public license, which does require open sourcing the entire stack. MongoDB was AGPL before that

thank you for this tidbit i had no idea and am now more educated on FOSS licensing

Re: Redis is open source again

#424

Post by nektro »

sigzero wrote: post #265
Alupis wrote: post #256

Earlier 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.

100% if they wanna stop shipping redis they should just remove the redis package

Re: Redis is open source again

#425

Post by ikiris »

andrepd wrote: post #378
hmottestad wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about Redis, but for Elastic I still feel sorry for them being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon. On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. Amazon is more than willing to sell you their Elasticsearch fork at a loss as long as they can eventually recoup the losses when Elastic inevitably dies.…

I sure wish I lived in a world where anti-competitive regulators weren't a joke.

What exactly do you think is anti-competitive about offering an open source product as a service?

Re: Redis is open source again

#426

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

umbra07 wrote: post #344
kstrauser wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSPL isn't recognized as either open source or free software. I don't think it earns being discussed in the same context.

only because OSI says so. I don't agree with the idea of OSI defining my philosophical positions and technical terms for me, just like I don't agree with the BSD people excluding GPL from the definition of open source.

I'm sympathetic to the OSI not being the only authority. So, have the DFSG, FSF, any BSD, or literally anyone credible endorsed it as Free and/or Open Source?

Re: Redis is open source again

#427

Post by tedivm »

badlucklottery wrote: post #400
jaapz wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly their CEO states that AWS an Google forking redis and maintaining it separately was their "goal" all along. Because fragmentation is apparently good?

> Because fragmentation is apparently good? I think it's more "they are no longer piggybacking off our work for free". I also think what they actually wanted was that plus "...and they paid us".

The reason the ValKey fork happened so fast is that AWS was already sponsoring developers for the open source redis project.

Re: Redis is open source again

#428

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

bionhoward wrote: post #390

Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing? Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project. Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?

> Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing?

They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise left to the reader. I genuinely don't know, I'd have to stare at definitions for a bit to form an opinion.)

> Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project.

Er, I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to use it in a private work? AFAIK the viral parts of AGPL/GPL only say you have to share source with users of the software; if your only user is you then it's immaterial.

> Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?

Worse/better is somewhat subjective, but AGPL is a (Free and) Open Source license. It was open source (BSD), then it wasn't (SSPL), then it was open source (AGPL).

Re: Redis is open source again

#429

Post by senderista »

Why I will never try to monetize my own project:

1. To monetize a project, it must first gain wide adoption.

2. To gain wide adoption, it must have a permissive license.

3. To successfully monetize (after gaining wide adoption), it must have a restrictive license.

4. Changing a project's license to be more restrictive will alienate the community and hurt adoption.

I see no solution to this dilemma.

Post reply on HN