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

Why AWS Supports Valkey

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#101

Post by graemep »

chipdart wrote: post #100
pizza234 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> forces a licensing change where all users [...] are faced with an invoice-or-lawyer threat. You're spreading misinformation. See other comments about RSAL/SSPL.

> You're spreading misinformation. See other comments about RSAL/SSPL. I think you are commenting on things you know nothing about. Take the time you need to read through the license you are quoting. Here's a link to the Redis Source Available License 2.0 (RSALv2): https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement/ With RSALv2 you do not need to reach very far in the licensing terms to read the part where it explicitly prohib…

> With Server Side Public License (SSPL) it's an even bigger shit show, as it forces any business that uses the software to release under the very same license all software and systems and even user interfaces (?!) that directly or indirectly interact with their project. As it is very easy to understand, this prohibits any company from adopting any software released under that license.

Not "any business", only a business that offers a hosted version of the software. AWS has a problem offering a hosted Redis service, but no one who self-hosts (including running it on a cloud) is affected.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#102

Post by graemep »

Kwpolska wrote: post #91
pizza234 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you actually taken the time to understand the RSAL and SSPL? > If you want to use a restrictive license, start your project with it, period There is essentially only one restriction (the other is about formal notices) imposed by the RSAL, and it forbids to "Commercialize the software or provide it to others as a managed service". > IMHO, small companies and developers ultimately lose here This is an uninformed o…

The licence forbids > offering a product or service, the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Software or Modified version How do you define how much value your app derives from Redis? If Redis is the primary data store for your app, does it count?

> How do you define how much value your app derives from Redis? If Redis is the primary data store for your app, does it count?

It will be if your app is a data store service . i.e. your apps is a thin wrapper around Redis.

If your app is more than that, then its clear the value does not primarily derive from Redis.

There are inevitably grey areas (e.g. if your app is a Redis based data store but adds a lot of functionality) but 99% of users do not need to worry.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#103

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

chrisoverzero wrote: post #69
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #68

I'm sorry, I just hate this foul language. Amazon claims that "Redis broke with the community that helped it grow and left them stranded" whereas the sole reason for the license change was Amazon itself who takes open source projects and gives its creators nothing in exchange. They will bend over backwards and create their own forks like OpenSearch rather than collaborate with the creators. And at the end, they will…

> […] rather than collaborate with the creators. How do you propose AWS “collaborate” with Elastic or Redis Labs under the terms of the SSPL? Also, who do you believe the creators of Redis are?

> How do you propose AWS “collaborate” with Elastic or Redis Labs under the terms of the SSPL?

This is quite simple, and should have happened before these companies decide to switch licenses because of Amazon. Each time Amazon decides to use an open source product, instead of doing it for free, they should contact the parent company and offer them a fee. There are many advantages of such an arrangement: a single version exists, the parent company has a stable source of income etc.

I might be mistaken, but this path was possibly chosen by Citus and Azure, and nobody seems to complain.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#104

Post by thayne »

redwood wrote: post #62
dig1 wrote: post #26

It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…

Re "But we (small companies and devs) now have to spend time migrating and moving things around without any additional value." You shouldn't have to do anything: I don't get it I think you're making a choice because you have a preference for non-copyleft licenses in software you use? That's your choice

Sure you do. You have to worry about which fork has the best chance of succeeding in the long run (and my bet wouldn't be on the one from the company that was struggling enough that it felt the need to risk upsetting the community with a licence change). You need to worry about if the new license is acceptable, and even if you aren't selling a managed service for the software, these licenses make lawyers nervous (and I suspect that is intentional). And you have to evaluate if the license change is an indication that the company no longer values the community and users.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#105

Post by d-z-m »

Spivak wrote: post #82
d-z-m wrote: post #79

Big bad Redis Inc. won't let us host their software as a service anymore! Good thing AWS(champions of open-source software) are here to help! Seriously though, very duplicitous framing by AWS. Ignoring the clear existential threat to Redis's business if they allow other managed offerings to undercut their own.

What other framing is there? There was an OSS project called Redis that existed before Redis Inc., who gave their software to the OSS community in the hope it that would be useful to others. Millions of people including AWS started using it under the pretense that it was and would continue to be OSS. Redis Inc. saw $$ after Redis Enterprise and their hosted offering were luke warm successes at best and took all the c…

I see it as an incentive problem. How are the maintainers of these projects to receive the support they need? Companies like AWS are incentivized to take all they can take and contribute nothing in return, "it's FOSS, baby".

Redis Inc. is incentivized to continue the development and improvement of Redis, because the success of Redis is directly proportional to the success of their business. Meanwhile, a shit-hot new open-source KV database could come out tomorrow, and AWS would forget their newfound OSS goodwill towards Valkey in a heartbeat.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#106

Post by yndoendo »

Sorry, I loose respect for those defending Amazon. Terrible behavior towards their workers, push against consumer protection, and anticompetitive antics like price-fixing highlight their deplorable behavior. They only way I do business with them is taking their money and not giving them a penny.

Their Walk Out technology original statements and working reality show they find with grifting to prop up their image.

Here is good example of economics. How much is a $25 Amazon gift card worth? Some it many be $25 and others it is $0, and in-between for people looking to off load their gift card for pennies on the dollar.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#107

Post by Kwpolska »

graemep wrote: post #102
Kwpolska wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The licence forbids > offering a product or service, the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Software or Modified version How do you define how much value your app derives from Redis? If Redis is the primary data store for your app, does it count?

> How do you define how much value your app derives from Redis? If Redis is the primary data store for your app, does it count? It will be if your app is a data store service . i.e. your apps is a thin wrapper around Redis. If your app is more than that, then its clear the value does not primarily derive from Redis. There are inevitably grey areas (e.g. if your app is a Redis based data store but adds a lot of functi…

How thin is “thin”? If I build a chat app on top of Redis, is it safe? There’s a tutorial on the Redis website: https://developer.redis.com/howtos/chatapp/ — is it a sign that it’s too simple to be distinct?

Or I can just migrate my app to Valkey and be sure I’m safe from lawyers.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#108

Post by graemep »

Kwpolska wrote: post #107
graemep wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you define how much value your app derives from Redis? If Redis is the primary data store for your app, does it count? It will be if your app is a data store service . i.e. your apps is a thin wrapper around Redis. If your app is more than that, then its clear the value does not primarily derive from Redis. There are inevitably grey areas (e.g. if your app is a Redis based data store but adds a lot of functi…

How thin is “thin”? If I build a chat app on top of Redis, is it safe? There’s a tutorial on the Redis website: https://developer.redis.com/howtos/chatapp/ — is it a sign that it’s too simple to be distinct? Or I can just migrate my app to Valkey and be sure I’m safe from lawyers.

Its a chat app not a data store, so it fails the "primary purpose" test so its safe: its pretty obvious that a chat app serves a different purpose to a key value data store.

Nothing is definitely "safe from lawyers". In some ways BSD is less safe than SSPL - no patent licensing clauses for example.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#109

Post by Spivak »

d-z-m wrote: post #105
Spivak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other framing is there? There was an OSS project called Redis that existed before Redis Inc., who gave their software to the OSS community in the hope it that would be useful to others. Millions of people including AWS started using it under the pretense that it was and would continue to be OSS. Redis Inc. saw $$ after Redis Enterprise and their hosted offering were luke warm successes at best and took all the c…

I see it as an incentive problem. How are the maintainers of these projects to receive the support they need? Companies like AWS are incentivized to take all they can take and contribute nothing in return, "it's FOSS, baby". Redis Inc. is incentivized to continue the development and improvement of Redis, because the success of Redis is directly proportional to the success of their business. Meanwhile, a shit-hot new…

> Meanwhile, a shit-hot new open-source KV database could come out tomorrow, and AWS would forget their newfound OSS goodwill towards Valkey in a heartbeat.

Why do you say that? AWS is going to be providing Valkey as a service to millions of paying customers via their ElasticCache offering. Every cloud provider will be doing something similar. It's the same story with OpenSearch, it's now deeply integrated into AWS and used not just directly by their customers but by other AWS services. That's honestly the best model for OSS, many financially interested parties who want the software to exist to support their business, but the software itself isn't their business.

And now there's not a conflict of interest for the project to hold back features because they want to save them for the enterprise tier. The software getting better for everyone directly benefits their hosted offering.

I think there's a strong case that given a time machine Redis should have never been OSS so they could sell software licenses. But at the same time Redis wouldn't have become a household name for developers and have the huge ecosystem of tooling surrounding it were it not for the fact that it's OSS.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#110

Post by growse »

graemep wrote: post #101
chipdart wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're spreading misinformation. See other comments about RSAL/SSPL. I think you are commenting on things you know nothing about. Take the time you need to read through the license you are quoting. Here's a link to the Redis Source Available License 2.0 (RSALv2): https://redis.com/legal/rsalv2-agreement/ With RSALv2 you do not need to reach very far in the licensing terms to read the part where it explicitly prohib…

> With Server Side Public License (SSPL) it's an even bigger shit show, as it forces any business that uses the software to release under the very same license all software and systems and even user interfaces (?!) that directly or indirectly interact with their project. As it is very easy to understand, this prohibits any company from adopting any software released under that license. Not "any business", only a busi…

> Not "any business", only a business that offers a hosted version of the software. AWS has a problem offering a hosted Redis service, but no one who self-hosts (including running it on a cloud) is affected.

Does "hosted version of the software" mean that the hosted service has to exactly match the API semantics to count? Or does it mean any service that's semantically similar (and powered by) the software (e.g. simply storing and retrieving data on a user's behalf)?

Or does it mean something else?

Where is this actually defined?

Post reply on HN