111–120 of 206 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vector databases aren't for key value retrieval, they're for similarity search. What's that got to do with onnx?
ONNX runs the ML model that is f(string) -> vector. The similarity search is done using those vectors, and needs to return the original strings.
at work we're still at the pre-fork drama version of elasticsearch, it works and leaves us open to pick whichever direction we want to go at a later date when we need it. The same will be for redis, it works, no need to stay up to date.
https://discuss.elastic.co/c/announcements/security-announce...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many of these recent forks are being done because people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to slap a UI on top of their free open-source product and resell it, making tens of millions of dollars per day in the process. I can't really blame them. I won't blame them for regretting their past actions, but I hope the lesson would be learned: if you want to put limitation on the use of your software, you shouldn't have licensed…
With the noise people make when you don't use an OSI open-source license, little wonder. But when Redis started I think we didn't yet boardly understand the limitations of OSI licenses in the era of big tech cloud computing. To people starting projects today, you have no excuse, we know better. Don't use OSI open-source unless it's entirely a labor of love that you're giving away free. OSI Open-source business models…
I am curious for examples of any projects now *starting( with one of these non-open-source rights-to-profit-reserved licenses, now that is clearly "understood". Are there any examples? Are they successfully attracting users? Contributors?
Generally my stance with these forks born from community drama is "wait and see." Sometimes the fork will gain traction and become the de facto "true" version (see Hudson -> Jenkins). Sometimes the fork will flop and people will largely stick to the original despite whatever caused the schism (see Terraform -> OpenTofu). Many of these recent forks are being done because people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to slap a UI on…
Changing from an open source license is a kind of tech product spin on enshitification. Even if the product continues to get features and active development, like Oracle poured into MySQL after its acquisition, a database or framework going less open source is still a death knell. The mainstream programmers will move on and use something else. Anything else. Who who has heard that the license can change would now pic…
I've always thought the "we're just hosting a server with our modified version of this OSS code, so we don't have to share the source" argument was trash.
I really don’t get why Redis didn’t keep the same license but with an addendum that companies (where this applies to the ultimate parent company) that have more than some huge amount of revenue (say, $5 billion), can’t resell it. Similar to the license provision for the Llama2 model. That wouldn’t upset people nearly as much, since it would only apply to a handful of hyper scalers, and then Redis the company could cu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many of these recent forks are being done because people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to slap a UI on top of their free open-source product and resell it, making tens of millions of dollars per day in the process. I can't really blame them. I won't blame them for regretting their past actions, but I hope the lesson would be learned: if you want to put limitation on the use of your software, you shouldn't have licensed…
First of all, you can "recall a gift", if it is legal. I don't think I've seen people arguing that these re-licensing actions are not legal . But if you mean that you can't recall a gift without making people mad, then yep, that's true! But keeping people from being mad is not the only thing that matters. But the real problem I have with, "I hope the lesson will be learned" is that the lesson people are learning is "…
This, thousand times. Looks like FOSS advocates feel so threatened by "source available" licenses that they will do everything possible to keep them from gaining momentum (see Commons Clause).
It's a shame really. It would be nice to have a standard and well known license that would both allow users to use software freely (for using and adapting) and still protect makers from their competitors (AWS comes to mind) undercutting them with their own product. Oh well.
EDIT: ...and here comes the first (anonymous) downvote. Proves my point about FOSS sentiment, I guess? Come on, it's a discussion, you can do better than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. It has only been a few months since the split. I have noticed more and more uptake of OpenTofu amongst colleagues, and I've personally switched. The thing that makes the difference is what is running on people's laptops, because that's what people will eventually put into prod.
> The thing that makes the difference is what is running on people's laptops, because that's what people will eventually put into prod. "It works on my machine!" "Then we'll ship your machine" Docker: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:720/format:webp/1*Ibnw...
As somebody who pulled down an open source project I find this trope of FOSS losing its way for greed utterly disingenuous. People need to put food on the table, period. I’ve had people take my work and make more money from it than I have, with no attribution or credit. Then I pulled it down and got a lot of people asking why it’s no longer free, when I tell them I can sell them a license they don’t even reply. I car…