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

Redis is forked

vickiboykis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: Redis is forked

#151

Post by abdullahkhalids »

eigenvalue wrote: post #99

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…

I agree. The dual licenses don't really slice reality the way they want them to - that large companies should pay, and everyone else should use for free. So just say that. Pick a revenue number, and say that anyone above that number should contact for an alternate license.

To answer sibling comment by theamk: I think such projects should just disclose their rates up front.

Re: Redis is forked

#152

Post by paxys »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #4

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…

> because people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to ...

Important to note that the "people" in this case is the company that bought the rights to the Redis trademark from the original creator and then took on $350M in VC funding. The community that created and supported Redis since its inception was not involved in the decision, and isn't getting any of the benefit.

Re: Redis is forked

#153

Post by kubanczyk »

mfru wrote: post #139

It seems to me that dual-licensing AGPL + commercial and no CLAs is the best way to go. AGPL ensures no one will serve your software via network without also showing their code (which they can avoid by buying commercial licenses and thus funding the project) and no CLAs ensures that the project can not be relicensed without every contributor agreeing. (after all, if really every person can agree it is a good idea the…

No CLA for commercial license would mean that any contributor retains copyright to their work. So, you mean they get proportional dividend from commercial contracts? Is there a precedent? I'm honestly curious.

Re: Redis is forked

#154

Post by theamk »

sjm wrote: post #108

Can someone ELI5 why I should feel bad about Redis charging massive companies like AWS and Google to use/sell/profit from their software? Am I really supposed to feel like Amazon is the good guy in this situation? As far as I can tell this change doesn't affect 99.999% of Redis users, but I understand I could be missing something?

It affects users who were using hosted redis - there is no longer any competition. If you liked to use redis hosted by someone else (for example for lower price, or better integration, or something like this), it is no longer possible. It's Redis Lab way or highway, and they can jack up prices as high as they want.

Re: Redis is forked

#155

Post by lelanthran »

nurple wrote: post #101
bevekspldnw wrote: post #14

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…

The point is to benefit humanity, not make money. With that said, sure this ideology seems impossible to realize change in the current money-obsessed world, but the thing is that these ideologies are simply incompatible. Yes, I'd say that you are also unfortunately money-obsessed, your whole post is centered on it; I don't blame you though, I also have to focus a majority of my life on money to raise my children, but…

> The point is to benefit humanity, not make money.

Maybe, but the priority is to put food on the table. You can't benefit humanity if you're dead.

Re: Redis is forked

#156

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

sanderjd wrote: post #67
snotrockets wrote: post #26

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 "…

> But the real problem I have with, "I hope the lesson will be learned" is that the lesson people are learning is "don't try to build ambitious software requiring a lot of work from a dedicated core team using an open source license; you're going to find yourself damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Yeah, for things running server-side that could be used by Amazon and Microsoft, they should use SSPL from the start. In this case everything is clear and everybody knows what to expect. For regular users, there is absolutely zero difference between SSPL and OSI-certified licenses.

Re: Redis is forked

#157

Post by bevekspldnw »

lelanthran wrote: post #155
nurple wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is to benefit humanity, not make money. With that said, sure this ideology seems impossible to realize change in the current money-obsessed world, but the thing is that these ideologies are simply incompatible. Yes, I'd say that you are also unfortunately money-obsessed, your whole post is centered on it; I don't blame you though, I also have to focus a majority of my life on money to raise my children, but…

> The point is to benefit humanity, not make money. Maybe, but the priority is to put food on the table. You can't benefit humanity if you're dead.

Never underestimate the willingness of people to have others suffer for their ideals.

Re: Redis is forked

#158

Post by paxys »

hnthrowaway6543 wrote: post #4

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…

That project was dead in the water once they decided to name it "OpenTofu".

Re: Redis is forked

#159

Post by toast0 »

hcrean wrote: post #36
vdfs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to slap a UI on top of their free open-source product and resell it If it wasn't open-source it won't be as popular as it is in the first place, Redis is also using ton of open source software or libraries for free. Not defending AWS/GCP/Azure, I actually got my software used when i was young by a large company for free (not even a mention- Still using it i think, 5M+ Play Store Down…

Open Source is, by and large, intended by the creator to donate their ideas to benefit humanity as a whole; many people feel that using their thing to help strengthen an (ethically questionable) monopoly is acting against that core goal.

When I fix a bug in OpenSSL, it benefits humanity regardless of who deploys it. Maybe slightly less beneficial if it fixes an evil service, but still... Better to have a successful TLS handshake and get on with the evil.

I don't think anything else open source I've done has been widely deployed, but if I save a bit of someone's time because they can use something I did, or save some users' cpu and bandwidth, it doesn't matter to me if that's a user of a free service or a propriatary one, I still helped their user.

Re: Redis is forked

#160

Post by plorkyeran »

weinzierl wrote: post #89
bit_flipper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely an interesting question. Some things that may explain why -- Mongo was always AGPL and relicensed to SSPL. This had the following consequences: * Very few companies and zero large cloud companies ever attempted to run the MongoDB codebase in production as a managed service, other than MongoDB the company. * Mostly because of the above, MongoDB did not receive many code contributions that did not originate…

Were there any MongoDB cloud offerings of the AGPL version? If SSPL is effective as a poisonous pill against AWS and Co. but SSPL is not, that's a big difference in my book.

mLab/MongoLab, which MongoDB acquired when they started to seriously pursue their own cloud offering.
Post reply on HN