they realize that they dont have a "moat" and if entire industry try hard enough to replace them then its over for them
Redis is open source again
291–300 of 815 posts
Re: Redis is open source again
#292I'm curious whether the community will trust Redis-the-company again after this, or if they'll choose to stick with Valkey. The other concern is at least some big company legal departments are wary of AGPL software, which makes Valkey, still BSD, more attractive to them. Edit: Regardless, thank you and the rest of the folks inside Redis for pushing to bring this back to OSS!
All of this aside, Redis-the-company has some of the least tactful salespeople I've come across in my long stint in this industry. Used car sales level tactics. Between that and the licensing, I would never consider dealing with them.
The team of sales was, AFAIK, rebuilt from scratch recently. Please if this happened recently tell me, and I'll make sure to report back. Thanks.
Re: Redis is open source again
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
This notion that open source projects aren't really open source unless they welcome all contributions is one of the dumber ideas in the world.
Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"
> source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me
There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source.
If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should be able to fix it and contribute that back upstream so everyone benefits. That's my way of "paying back" and helping the community. Projects that reject contributions, or make contributing difficult are not in the spirit of open source, even if they are technically open source via their license.
That's what I call "fake" open source - you want the positive image of being Open Source only.
Re: Redis is open source again
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need to stop taking the OSI or FSF's positions on anything as particularly valuable. The OSI is captured entirely by corporate sponsors. Amazon was paying a full-time salary a year to the OSI when the SSPL issue happened, the OSI had no ability to take a moral pro-labor stance without crippling their own operations. They still do not meaningfully answer to individual users: The OSI recently refused to disclose who…
The OSI and FSF make sense by prohibiting stuff like the sspl. Open source should express freedom and by putting restrictions on certain users no matter how evil they are wont express freedom at all
You seem to be opposed to software freedom. The SSPL is a viral copyleft open source license, it merely requires users to open source things. The SSPL is only restrictive in the same way as the GPL is, it requires granting users software freedom.
Re: Redis is open source again
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their stats are "I asked an LLM", no, that's not joke, see this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43860256
[flagged]
If your stats aren't from "trust me" or an LLM, can you please just post where you are getting your market share stats from?
Re: Redis is open source again
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that it’s actually open source.
In word, but not in deed. I'll say it over and over again: COSS startups don't adopt the AGPL because they want to prioritize user freedom, they adopt it as a means of defense.
I don't really care why they adopt it, only that they do. AGPL is a license I can use, SSPL is not.
Re: Redis is open source again
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a win for the community over and against the corporations that are Redis and Elastic. They're not the good guys for giving in to the pressure. They tried to ride FOSS to prominence and then extract wealth on the backs of the community and found that the community mattered more than they did. So sure, let's celebrate, but celebrate the community, not those who tried to pull the rug out from under them.
I said exactly that's a win of the community. But money are needed to pay the folks that work at open source software, and the companies that went for the SSPL were trying to protect their business (and, as a side effect, wanted or not, the ability to pay for such work). I believe the software world failed to protect open source software in the cloud era, but in general the environment that we collectively created ma…
I don't buy that justification. These two companies (and the others like them) set up a model for funding their business knowing full well that they would have to compete with others who were able to provide the same service they were. That's always been baked into FOSS—you can't plan around a monopoly when you're releasing your code for free, that's part of the trade-off you make.
When AWS and Co did provide hosting and provided it better than these guys could, now it's suddenly AWS who are the bad guys for using the FOSS software the way the license always said they could. Now we're suddenly supposed to ignore the terms on which FOSS has always been released and pick up our pitchforks against the big mean cloud provider.
Instead of sticking to the fundamental principles of FOSS (principles which they won business by openly espousing) and adapting their business to the fact that Elastic and Redis lost in the competition they knowingly set up, they fixated on hosting (on top of AWS and Co, no less!) as the business model and changed the licenses to give themselves a monopoly on it.
Re: Redis is open source again
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how it's worse? https://github.com/microsoft/garnet/blob/main/LICENSE It's MIT licensed?
Microsoft has a habit of "fake" open source. Particularly on Github. By "fake", I mean Microsoft largely treats their Open Source codebases like they are closed-source, in-house proprietary codebases that they happen to let members of the public look at. They'll accept a PR once in a while, but mostly it appears Issues and PR's are used as a free alternative to UserVoice. Every decision is made behind closed doors (p…
Open source does not mean you accept contributions from others. It means that the source code is available, and that people are free to take it and modify it themselves. You are using a definition which is... not exactly incorrect, because definitions are what they are, but certainly not what everyone else uses.
Re: Redis is open source again
#299I'm happy to see the news after having a chance to look at sources more closely (for unrelated reasons). The Redis geohash/gis related implementation is such a pleasure to read.
Re: Redis is open source again
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
I make an open source, MIT licensed piece of software. I don't accept unsolicited contributions, but I document that people are free to fork the code and provide instructions on how to develop, test and build on your machine. Am I "fake open source"?
In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted. In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just goin…
I have the same feeling. I got used to infrastructure being run as a democracy, not merely “source available under GPL/BSD/MIT”. (It’s a big thing to want, sure, but I don’t mind wanting big things.)