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

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Redis is forked

#191

Post by pas »

Pet_Ant wrote: post #49
slashdev wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Don't use OSI open-source unless it's entirely a labor of love that you're giving away free. Well, know what your secret sauce is. I think performance is really the best differentiator. Make a fully behaviourally compatible (maybe not bug for bug) version available and then sell a proprietary faster version. Think an compiler that doesn't due any optimisation and outputs naive code. You know have a useful OSI proje…

this is the open core model, it works well for things like GitLab (as far as I know)

and in effect GitLab is doing a BSL-like thing by after a few years they release features to the free tier

but it rarely works if you need to decline contribution from people who would eat into your profit margins. I think ElasticSearch had this problem (and the community basically ended up with a few forks, because people sent the patches for security features that were in the enterprise version, and to no one's surprise they did not get merged ...)

so, I guess it works if there's a huuuge scope with plenty of things to contribute, to shoot for the moon together, without hurting the business side too much.

Re: Redis is forked

#192

Post by pas »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #96
hcrean wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is why the most viral AGPL license you can find is the only right license for Open Source. There is no downside: for honest, upstanding developers who want to use your code, there's no problem, because their code was going to be Open Source, too. For the soulless corporations, they'll either not use your code, or contribute back their modifications, a win-win for everyone. The only losers are people who are enga…

is there a stronger version of AGPL where if you run it as a SaaS you need to publish the source for the infra/management/self-service/payments machinery too?

Re: Redis is forked

#193

Post by evanelias »

theamk wrote: post #154
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.

> If you liked to use redis hosted by someone else [...] it is no longer possible

That's not true though. Cloud vendors can choose to pay Redis Ltd to continue to offer "official" Redis as a managed product. Azure is doing this. AWS and GCP just chose not to.

Re: Redis is forked

#194

Post by vinyl7 »

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.

I don't think this is entirely true. I think a non-insignificant portions of OSS is OSS because they want people to help build the project (for free)

Re: Redis is forked

#195

Post by sanderjd »

pas wrote: post #190
sanderjd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they definitely should use something like that from the start, in my view. But I think they won't , because there is now a lot of evidence that this will result in a bunch of bad press, whereas just making it proprietary will go without comment. What incentive do companies have to do this?

the best strategy is still to start out with something that's press-positive (Apache2) and switch to BSL/SSPL after funding is secured. bad press will happen, but at least later, after the good press phase.

What is the advantage of that, over just building proprietary software?

Re: Redis is forked

#196

Post by bevekspldnw »

nurple wrote: post #183
bevekspldnw wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, I’ll send you my land lords banking info so you can pay my rent, the info for my kids childcare, and where to contribute to my retirement account. Also, for what it’s worth, I’ve forgone millions of dollars in compensation over the years to work on socially beneficial projects, and literally just left $250k on the table last year alone. But yeah, wanting to support my family makes me greedy.

I said money-obsessed, not greedy, not really the same thing, but it is something that's becoming more and more pervasive. Case in point, your whole response was focused purely on money. I actually find it pretty interesting that there's so much hostility towards my posts when I attempt to start a discussion on alternatives to our present and decaying society. Like, it is a lack of imagination? A resignation to reali…

I’ve been working in digital rights and advocacy for years. High rhetoric isn’t how you change things, it’s long-term commitment to meaningful action that must be sustained or it will falter.

My annoyance is that I’ve had this discussion a hundred times and unless you are in the trenches trying to make change while supporting your family I’m not really interested in musings on what a better world looks like, I’m busy trying to support myself doing the work to make it happen.

And per my comment above, I’ve given up a TON of money, but I still deserve to have money in my pocket.

Re: Redis is forked

#197

Post by snotrockets »

pas wrote: post #189
bornfreddy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I think it's unlikely we'll even see as many products with "source available" licenses because, how is it worth the hassle to release source when the community has shown more good will to projects that are entirely proprietary? 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 Cl…

what's the best version of the argument that these new BSL/SSPL licenses are bad, or that they are not in the spirit of FOSS?

FOSS originalists insist on no limitations on use of the software.

The FSF prohibits such in what they call freedom 0:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

And OSI explicitly forbids it in their open source definition:

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a > specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from > being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

This rules out no-CSP licenses from those definition, as well as the original JSON license, as it used to read something like "this software shouldn't be used for evil". Those rules would also block banning software from being used for war crimes, human rights abuse, etc. And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities (and not just possibly reducing shareholder value). But I digress.

Re: Redis is forked

#198

Post by theamk »

evanelias wrote: post #193
theamk wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you liked to use redis hosted by someone else [...] it is no longer possible That's not true though. Cloud vendors can choose to pay Redis Ltd to continue to offer "official" Redis as a managed product. Azure is doing this. AWS and GCP just chose not to.

Can't imagine Redis Ltd will be allowing cloud vendors to undercut their offering long-term.

Even if Azure Redis is cheap now, just wait until the next low-performing quarter at Redis Ltd, and they'll raise Azure's fees to make their offering more attractive.

They are the monopolist now, no one can force them to have fair prices.

Re: Redis is forked

#199

Post by pas »

snotrockets wrote: post #197
pas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the best version of the argument that these new BSL/SSPL licenses are bad, or that they are not in the spirit of FOSS?

FOSS originalists insist on no limitations on use of the software. The FSF prohibits such in what they call freedom 0: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). And OSI explicitly forbids it in their open source definition: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a > specific field of endeavor. For ex…

Sure, I know, but I mean that's just their subjective line in the sand. (Their maximal-freedom in this kind of infinite dimensional space.)

After all wouldn't a user be more free if they were able to just do whatever they want with it, not just run it? Ie. free to copy/modify/sublicense it in any way? Why is program execution more important than other use of the intellectual property?

If they want to maximize freedom for all potential users, then they ought to think about sustainability of the software. (As in economic incentives and market share and whatnot.) To me it seems they have a static worldview, the only thing they care about is that current set-in-stone version of the work, but that's basically putting their head into the cool refreshing sand of ignorance.

(That said, I'm nowhere near FSF/OSI circles (duh! :P), so I have no idea what's their current thinking of this. Maybe they are fully aware of this, but ... based on HN chatter it seems that they realized it's a hard problem and picked an oversimplified worldview as workaround, and now it's institutionalized denial.)

> And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities.

I'm very skeptical of the practicality of it (after all if there's one thing states in general are good at, it is waging large scale wars and appropriating everything required for it), but if adding naive sounding clauses to FOSS-ish projects can prevent at least a few drone attacks it will have worth it.

Also, if people want to somehow put these use-restrictions into "the right context at the right time" then they can add a clause for that.

Ie. add a clause listing categories of uses and/or users (military, law enforcement, surveillance, and any state, state-owned, significantly state-sponsored entity) that require express written authorization from a named organization/institution, and folks could simply pick this when they start a project. (From Apache2-NATO to AGPL-ChaosComputerClub and so on.)

Re: Redis is forked

#200

Post by remram »

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 is not "their software" in the sense that they would have written it. So it's hard to feel bad when "others" are profiting from Redis too.
Post reply on HN