Why AWS Supports Valkey • Hacker News Board

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#121

Post by xenago » Tue, Apr 09, 2024, 7:15 PM UTC

evanelias wrote: post #117

zokier wrote: post #72

I would be far more sympathetic to these sspl corporations if they subjected themselves to those same license terms. But instead they play this some animals are more equal than others game.

That wouldn't ever make sense though. They're the licensor. You don't ever need a license in order to use intellectual property that you own. By definition the license is what allows third parties to use or redistribute copyrighted software.

It makes perfect sense. They claim all these benefits to users for these non-foss licenses and then themselves avoid them like the plague

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#122

Post by xenago » Tue, Apr 09, 2024, 7:16 PM UTC

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.

The only misleading framing here is your comment, and redis claiming anything about their license is good for users.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#123

Post by evanelias » Tue, Apr 09, 2024, 9:15 PM UTC

xenago wrote: post #121

evanelias wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't ever make sense though. They're the licensor. You don't ever need a license in order to use intellectual property that you own. By definition the license is what allows third parties to use or redistribute copyrighted software.

It makes perfect sense. They claim all these benefits to users for these non-foss licenses and then themselves avoid them like the plague

No, legally what is being suggested above is nonsensical.

If you own the copyright to a work, you can freely use that work, and you can license it to others. As the copyright holder, you get to decide what terms go in that license, but you do not need to abide by those terms-of-use yourself since you are the licensor, not the licensee.

Suggesting otherwise would be a bizarro-world where musicians need to pay to listen to their own music, authors need to pay to read their own books, and so forth. That's completely absurd, nothing works this way.

There are certainly valid reasons to be upset at a software company for changing the license for new versions of its software, but this is not one of them!