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

Redis is open source again

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#301

Post by [deleted] »

antirez wrote: post #35
md3911027514 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would PaaS providers switch back to offering Redis? They've clearly all already invested a lot in Valkey (AWS, GCP, Heroku).

AWS, GCP, surely are invested: they paid for ValKey, they forked to avoid doing revenue sharing with Redis in any way :D IMHO it's a matter of what the community does, and it, in turn, this depends on how well we are able to develop Redis. It's not just licensing and hyper-scalers, it's also a matter of development quality and direction. For instance, now in Redis you can find substantial more stuff not available in…

[deleted]

Re: Redis is open source again

#302

Post by Xunjin »

sigzero wrote: post #265
Alupis wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people switched to Valkey and didn't even know it. A lot like how many users are using MariaDB but think they are using MySQL. Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.

Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.

I understand your point, but that's how distros handles mostly licence issues. And I do believe that's the right way, we should strive for OSS projects in a distro that literally focuses on it.

Re: Redis is open source again

#304

Post by seba_dos1 »

Alupis wrote: post #219
KolmogorovComp wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re confusing open source and open to contribution. Is SQLite not open-source?

Perhaps... when I look at an Open Source codebase, I expect there to not just be source you can read, but also a way to contribute and engage with the codebase creators, beyond just bug reporting (aka. Github Issues). While it may technically be open source due to it's license and you can literally go look at the source - Microsoft is operating these codebases as-if they are proprietary. Every decision is made out of…

Whether a project is developed by a community or by a single entity holding all keys is completely orthogonal to being Open Source/Free Software. There's nothing wrong in putting one kind of projects above the other, but you may want to revise "your opinion" if you want to stay communicative, because terms and definitions are only useful when people agree on what they mean.

Re: Redis is open source again

#305

Post by colordrops »

lolinder wrote: post #289
tasuki wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> contributed a minor improvement to Redis under its original license [...] feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase How does this work legally? You write some code, contribute it under a certain license... and... a company can just re-license your code under any license they like?

They require a Contributor License Agreement [0] whereby you grant them the copyright to your contribution. Which means they become the ultimate decision-maker for all contributions and can relicense however and whenever they wish. [0] https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...

A contributor license agreement that does anything besides put your code under the project's standard OSS license is a huge red flag.

Re: Redis is open source again

#306

Post by yyyk »

gschizas wrote: post #279
giancarlostoro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft made one called Garnet, I wouldn't say its a fork though, its basically compatible with Redis and implemented mostly in C#. It supports the RESP wire protocol from Redis for ease of compatibility. https://github.com/microsoft/garnet

Nice. I've been using Memurai ( https://www.memurai.com/ ) for development on Windows (native, no WSL or Docker - for reasons), but this looks much better. EDIT: Weird that being a program from Microsoft (well, it's Microsoft Research, so that probably explains it?) it has no installer and doesn't run as a service on its own.

The readytorun zip includes a service exe, it does need 'sc create binpath= ' etc. to be ran as a service.

Re: Redis is open source again

#307

Post by zimpenfish »

dharmab wrote: post #227
cortesoft wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We kept using redis, the license change never affected us. We had no reason to switch.

From the blog post it seems like existing users kept using Redis but new users adopted alternatives instead.

> it seems like existing users kept using Redis

Redis user since it appeared and I switched my servers (~15) to Valkey - partially because of the shenanigans, partially because Arch is moving Redis to archive.

Re: Redis is open source again

#308

Post by williamstein »

Zambyte wrote: post #72

Very interesting that this is happening at the same time that NATS is going proprietary. Obviously Redis is way more well known, but as someone who has built a bunch on NATS over the last few years, this makes Redis an interesting choice to migrate to again.

Context:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43829008

- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1632

- https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/issues/6832

I also built a lot on NATS Jetstream, and I'm questioning my decision in light of the threatened license change.

Re: Redis is open source again

#309

Post by krab »

Alupis wrote: post #241
dharmab wrote: post #220

Earlier 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…

Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it?

I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself.

But why would accepting contributions be required?

Re: Redis is open source again

#310

Post by darkwater »

_msw_ wrote: post #105
kiitos wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statistically nobody is using valkey.

If you use the latest versions of Redis, you are benefiting from the continued efforts of the Valkey development community. [1] This is Open Source working well. Unfortunately, the reverse flow does not work. [1] https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/13638

Well, now that Redis is once again Open Source and even Free Software, that should change.
Post reply on HN