211–220 of 520 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's what she wrote about the above article: > If you're looking for a primer on what is going on with Redis and why its license change matters, this is the article to read. As someone close to the situation, this is the best summary I've seen.
Where?
I liked Andrew Kelleys perspective on this: let's treat Redict as a rename of the Redis project, and the project now called "Redis" a weird commercial fork of Redict. https://andrewkelley.me/post/redis-renamed-to-redict.html
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
There is an easy solution not just for this, but for other potential masses: Just go with MIT license and make money with support
You're vastly overestimating how much companies want to pay for support.
Support is usually for big corporate clients, and the Cover Your Ass principle works in full force there.
"No one ever got fired for choosing IBM".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole move to new "open-core" licenses started with the most famous (infamous?) AGPL project - MongoDB. The AGPL is not what companies like this want (Mongo, Elastic, Redis etc). They don't want AWS's code: AWS is already providing that. They want AWS to pay them royalties or stop competing.
Then they shouldn’t have open sourced it in the first place.
Would anyone have given mongo a look if it was a fully proprietary technology? They would have gone bust years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't Redis Labs employ paid contributors? Does Amazon donate their contributions back to the community?
According to the linked article, Amazon has contributed 5% of the contributions to Redis, while Redis, the company, has contributed 20%.
AWS also forked ElasticSearch into their “OpenSearch” DBaaS. It caused some issues at my last job because OpenSearch limited us to a particular version of the NEST .NET library that was missing some newer functionality. Real bummer and feels like a step in the wrong direction given all we’ve accomplished in tech over the last 20 years.
OpenSearch infuriates me to no end. It lacks so many improvements and advancements since the ancient version it was forked at, but because AWS already has an org's payments details, teams often refuse to look at Elasticsearch. Even basic things like autocompleting queries have been WIP for half a decade now: https://github.com/opendistro-for-elasticsearch/sample-code/... https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSear…
> Even basic things like autocompleting queries have been WIP for half a decade now.
It's an open-source project. If this bothered you for half a decade, you could always submit a patch.
Apparently it didn't bother enough other people that no one cared to send a patch.
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
And I think Open Source is based on the very few who decide to take it upon themselves to be the ones spearheading a specific project/task and share it with everyone else. Maybe it's not every single time me, sometimes it's you, sometimes it's Lucy or Mark, and that's how the roll keeps rolling for everyone.
So if a project goes down and nobody comes up to replace it, either it wasn't worth much or this is the time nobody took it upon themselves to do it (yet).
Microsoft's Garnet has the best chance of replacing Redis, the OSS project and the hosting company. Article doesn't mention it, but supposedly Microsoft uses novel algorithms and multi threading to achieve an order of magnitude improvement in throughput. Now if they can commercialize it with Azure, it should be a credible alternative to Redis Enterprise hosting.
All this outcry about license switch coming from "community" feels funny. After all, if there is the "community" then they can take the last open-source version and keep developing it themselves, right? But most "communities" are about "take, take, take", not "work, work, work". They often upset only because someone declared they aren't going to work for free any more.
At the same time big corps use it as carte blanche to basically pirate software in a legal way, while following the letter of the licence.
Going back to the open core/demo versions (aka Shareware/Public Domain/Trials) is the only sustainable way to make a living.