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

From where I left

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 472 posts

Re: From where I left

#311

Post by slavik81 »

foobarchu wrote: post #218
unethical_ban wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your analysis and I sympathize with Redis in some way. It seems to me that it's painfully obvious what a cloud provider is, but that everyone is afraid of what a lawyer could convince a judge in the Eastern District of Texas to think a cloud provider is. The technical definition should be something akin to offering raw R/W connectivity to redis databases for arbitrary purposes. Offering a redis-backed Sa…

Tbh it seems far past time for the OSI to come out with a blessed license with well defined terminology so we can stop watching every large OS project invent their own way of combating AWS/etc

Why would the Open Source Initiative bless a non-open source license?

Re: From where I left

#312

Post by kqr »

simonw wrote: post #68

For me, the license change upset me mainly for two reasons: 1. Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc - and when they did that it was under the understanding that project would remain under the same open source license. It honestly felt like a betrayal of trust. 2. From a purely selfish point…

> It used to be that you could pick an open source project and build a business on it and expect that the project would stay available to you under those well understood terms.

By "used to be" you mean for a brief period in the 2000s, right? Because this extremely generous open source landscape we have seen in the past 20 years were not the normal state of software for most of software's existence.

A generous open source landscape is something we -- you, I, the readers of HN -- have to actively maintain by shouldering the burden of maintaining the correctly licenced software. We cannot trust this important job to profit-making corporations.

Re: From where I left

#313

Post by osigurdson »

simonw wrote: post #68

For me, the license change upset me mainly for two reasons: 1. Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc - and when they did that it was under the understanding that project would remain under the same open source license. It honestly felt like a betrayal of trust. 2. From a purely selfish point…

MIT + popularity = commercial license

Re: From where I left

#314

Post by jenadine »

benatkin wrote: post #235
jonny_eh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and remains truly open-source, unlike Redis.

Redis from Redis Labs, available under a choice of its own license or the SSPL, is pretty close to truly open-source , IMO closer to it than the BUSL, which is another source-available license. It is pretty similar to the AGPLv3, and they even credibly applied to get it OSI-approved. https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-sid... https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/11291/how-to-... What it…

If the new license is so similar to the AGPL, why did they not pick AGPL as one of the license options in order to keep a well known OSI-aproved license?

Re: From where I left

#315

Post by hyperadvanced »

block_dagger wrote: post #100
munificent wrote: post #64

> However, during the “writing years” (I’m still writing, by the way), I often returned to coding, as a way to take breaks from intense writing sessions (writing is the only mental activity I found to be a great deal more taxing than coding) This has been my experience too. With both "Game Programming Patterns" and "Crafting Interpreters", writing the code was a joy while writing the prose was hard work. Gratifying,…

I have had the same experience. With coding I can be in that coveted state of flow for 10 hours straight. With creative writing, I feel exhausted after 3 or 4 hours. I didn’t expect this and don’t fully understand why.

There are a couple of reasons as far as I can tell. Programming can be adequately gamified or fulfill basic dopaminergic feedback loops in a way that “true” creative expression (outside of an effort-action-reward feedback loop) cannot. With fiction, the value is strictly non-instrumental or context-specific. While the parsimony of the (formal) language you deploy can be (reflexively) satisfying to look back on, the real joy of art for its own sake is the response from the reader, which is necessarily slower than that of a computer, as it requires a more complicated system of evaluation than pure utility.

Re: From where I left

#316

Post by tommica »

QuinnyPig wrote: post #271
antirez wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For somebody, like you and many others, it was very important to retain an OSI license. But I feel that in general given that the new license is IMHO good for almost every user, from the POV of what they can do with the code, and that the cloud situation was quite self evident, I believe that with better communication, and immediate developments/merges in the core, to counter balance the license switch, many people w…

I hear you, but at the same time it was badly done. I’ve been referring to Redis as “a proprietary fork of Valkey,” and that message has clearly resonated.

Isn't that just lying?

Re: From where I left

#317

Post by acmeian »

bornfreddy wrote: post #198
bitexploder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloud providers offer productized versions of Redis, so their interest in Valkey should be obvious :)

Yep. It is still a bit ironic that the community rallied behind Big Tech instead of a small startup though. Just saying.

Microsoft appears to be the only major player that isn't going with Valkey and established some sort of licensing deal with Redis [0].

[0]: https://redis.io/blog/introducing-azure-managed-redis

Re: From where I left

#318

Post by Nemo_bis »

openthc wrote: post #188

Another thing that kinds of sucks about this whole "license rug-pull" kind of business is that other teams (like ours) who are publishing open-source software/tools are now suspects too. Folk ask themselves, why contribute to this thing (MIT/GPL licenses) if there some for-profit entity involved? Folk can't take us at face-value (I'd argue demonstrated value) and level (unfounded) accusations at us; because some othe…

You don't need to ask people to rely on your promises. Just make sure that you are not able to do a rug pull, and explain that. It's generally pretty easy (just don't require a CLA) but you can make it clearer. For example, clarify that you don't own everyone's copyright by writing a copyright notice which includes all of the project's contributors.

There are some practical suggestions at https://reuse.software/tutorial/

Re: From where I left

#319

Post by space_oddity »

simonw wrote: post #68

For me, the license change upset me mainly for two reasons: 1. Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc - and when they did that it was under the understanding that project would remain under the same open source license. It honestly felt like a betrayal of trust. 2. From a purely selfish point…

Yep, when people contribute to a project, they invest more than just code; they invest trust in its principles

Re: From where I left

#320

Post by space_oddity »

crote wrote: post #134
antirez wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people had contributed their efforts to the Redis project for free - both in terms of code but also in advocacy, writing tutorials, publishing example code etc" I can understand that, but the thing about the BSD license is that such value never gets lost. People are able to fork, and after a fork for the original project to still lead will be require to put something more on the table. Inside Redis it was tried…

With open-source software, a license is as much a social contract as it is a legal one. People contribute because they want to be part of a community building something which is beneficial to everyone . Everyone contributes where they can, and in turn takes what they need. Redis Ltd. broke the social contract. They decided that the short-term profitability of the company was more important than the project as a whole…

And it's obviouse that when contributors feel their efforts may be co-opted or undermined, they’re less likely to engage
Post reply on HN