131–140 of 178 posts
Just to be 100% I can still use Redis for free in my projects in production so long as I don’t sell a hosted version of it right given this new Redis license?
Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.
I don't know why people think AGPL changes anything here. The very first of this wave of moves to non-FOSS licenses, and the creation of the SSPL license we are discussing here, was Mongo moving away from the AGPL. What these companies want is licenses which prevent AWS and other cloud providers from competing with them on their specific technology, regardless of how much those same companies are contributing to the…
Just to be 100% I can still use Redis for free in my projects in production so long as I don’t sell a hosted version of it right given this new Redis license?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they didn't, although they misleadingly claimed to be the "Home of Redis" for a number of years. Then they hired Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez), the author of Redis, and eventually purchased the copyright from him. Very sleazy outfit that fully deserves all the scorn poured on them.
If one sells a copyright to another, how can that be considered sleazy ? Someone made the sell - to make money I presume - and another bought it, to perhaps make more money ? Seems not that out of reach ? I don't understand the bitterness around this debate, it seems most people are frustated that they have to pay for something that was free, but at the same time, they probably made money from what was free. I totall…
What is the stance on incorporating Rust into the codebase?
I don't get the point of this - people are upset that Redis is trying to make money from companies like AWS and Google?
There is open source and there is non open source. Both is fine. Open source does not make a difference who uses it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most popular OSS projects use Apache and MIT in my experience, precisely because GPLs are problematic for commercial usage and contributions from employed people.
Don't know why this is downvoted, I have endlessly heard corp lawyers say this to my face while I worked there. I have had a "popular" open source library I contributed significantly to campaigned by Microsoft to change the license to MIT, and the founder and creator decided to relicense without getting any sign offs because they felt that nobody would get mad enough to sue them.
Lawyers entire job is to make convincing arguments for any position you want, by artfully speaking only true facts, no matter what the position is and no matter what the facts are.
Of course a lawyer can and will say that you "can't" let any gpl software pollute the companys product "because the gpl prevents it", instead of saying that the company doesn't want to pay the license fee for the software.
The facts of the gpls terms may be true, and the lawyer may present them for their argument, but that still doesn't make the overall assertion true.
They can use gpl software all they want. They just don't want to. And good for them. That is better than simply stealing it which many do.
It's also merely an assertion that "most" open source software uses apache/mit/bsd wthout some numbers and citation. But that sentence could be parsed more than one way. They might have only been saying that most of the projects that use apache/mit do so for commercial compatibility reasons.
I think Redis Ltd. is vastly overestimating the value of their product. Redis is incredibly popular, but the vast majority of users are just looking for a simple in-memory key-value store for lightweight database use cases, caching, etc. I've used it in some way in just about all my projects for the past ~15 years.
The thing is, I don't care that it's Redis. I don't care about most of its features. I could have subbed in memcached or any number of other solutions. It would have been trivial and had no impact on my system.
I have no doubt that there are some power users who need advanced features of Redis, but I also have no doubt that Redict will be better, and that there will be companies who provide commercial support for it.
I'm just going to use Amazon ElastiCache for big projects, and continue not caring at all about what it is behind the scenes. And I'll s/redis/redict in my docker-compose.yml for small/personal projects, and that'll be the end of it.
I can't imagine a scenario where Redis Ltd. is relevant or profitable 10 years from now. Oracle can afford to lose money on MySQL forever, and treat it as a loss-leader for acquiring new Oracle DB customers or at least new MySQL service contracts. Redis Ltd. has one product and few people need support for it or care much about it vs. alternatives.
Edit: Or Valkey instead of Redict; either way, which exemplifies the degree to which I don't care.
This is all fine and good, but the big question for me personally is when we can expect to see cloud providers (DigitalOcean and AWS are the ones I'm using) provide hosted versions of Redict OR Valkey with some sort of upgrade path from Redis. I'm a good full-stack developer and a mediocre server administrator, so self-managing hosting is usually not something I'd prefer to do.