Absolutely hilarious and ironic for AWS to say they support an Apache project fork of Redis when it was their hosting Redis and ostensibly not paying Redis or somehow working with them to do it causing RedisLabs to do what only they can and go closed to be able to sell their own hosted services providing Redis. How else would they compete with AWS?
Why AWS Supports Valkey
41–50 of 123 posts
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#42They talk about OpenTofu, are they going to do cdktf for opentofu then?
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. We in the same universe? I've seen nothing but Redis thrown to the wolves for daring to ask for money, at least around here anyway.
>I've seen nothing but Redis thrown to the wolves for daring to ask for money, Reducing it to purely "asking for money" is not what the criticism is about. The issue is the changing of licensing terms and not the money. Other open source projects that also have commercial paid products/services include SQLite, Bitwarden, TrueNAS, etc and yet there isn't endless arguments about those projects "asking for money" becaus…
> start with BSD license and keep it for 15 years and then change to SSPL
Well, the competition landscape was a lot different 15 yrs ago.
In the same way, GPL went from version 2 to 3, in response to the landscape
I think it's unwise to not respond to environment changes.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#44It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…
I get that people get upset that their software of choice license is changed at the philosophical level. But I don’t get it at the economical level. When a project changes the license for a future version, the older versions are still available in the older open license right? So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? License changes, people don’t like the new license, they don’t contribute anymore (let’s keep the forks aside for a second), all new change are now by the employees of the company, they own the rights to that like every other product company. What am I missing here? Why do people get upset about the economics of effort and benefit?
I have always been to afraid to ask this ask this question for fear of appearing stupid. But gotta live and learn. So here goes nothing.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#45It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…
>It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. We in the same universe? I've seen nothing but Redis thrown to the wolves for daring to ask for money, at least around here anyway.
It's not "asking for money", it's shutting down a usage of the code, and that's completely against the spirit of "free software", and even against the broader meaning of opensource[1].
However, I think everyone understands that it's a problem to make a living from small but important part of an bigger infrastructure, but this is the wrong way.
The Linux Foundation will throw money at Valkey, Amazon will still sell the service and Redi's will lose (because it's just one company and not opensource).
[1] https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...
And I'm not even talking about external contributors whose work is re-licensed under a proprietary license.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#46It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…
Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness?
As far as I know there's nothing that can stop a project from switching license (for for new code only, of course) and this can feel like a deception. There may be a legal/corporate mechanism I don't know about, like a permanent kind of charter, but it seems not.
The best option I can think of is giving control (board seats or copyright assignment or whatever) to trusted institutions like Apache or the FSF or Linux Foundation.
It seems too easy for big "open" endeavours to change their mind after they've built trust and a userbase. It would be great if there was a way to guarantee that that won't happen.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've seen nothing but Redis thrown to the wolves for daring to ask for money, Reducing it to purely "asking for money" is not what the criticism is about. The issue is the changing of licensing terms and not the money. Other open source projects that also have commercial paid products/services include SQLite, Bitwarden, TrueNAS, etc and yet there isn't endless arguments about those projects "asking for money" becaus…
> start with BSD license and keep it for 15 years and then change to SSPL Well, the competition landscape was a lot different 15 yrs ago. In the same way, GPL went from version 2 to 3, in response to the landscape I think it's unwise to not respond to environment changes.
>I think it's unwise to not respond to environment changes.
True, but killing your company and make your code proprietary is most likely the wrong response.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. We in the same universe? I've seen nothing but Redis thrown to the wolves for daring to ask for money, at least around here anyway.
It's not "asking for money", it's shutting down a usage of the code, and that's completely against the spirit of "free software", and even against the broader meaning of opensource[1]. However, I think everyone understands that it's a problem to make a living from small but important part of an bigger infrastructure, but this is the wrong way. The Linux Foundation will throw money at Valkey, Amazon will still sell th…
The Linux Foundation won't "throw money" at it, it will probably provide some legal support if needed, but project work is largely funded by the membership fees for the subfoundations, and at this project membership level thats not much unless eg AWS etc are contributing it.
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#49I think this is how finally we get the big cloud providers to maintain the open source projects. AWS now supports OpenSearch (ElasticSearch), OpenTofu (Terraform), and ValKey (Redis). They also provide the Corretto builds of the JDK. Overall if an OSS project becomes a significant part of cloud workloads, the cloud providers will pony up to keep that project going.
According to LWN [0], Redis was already maintained by big corporations/cloud providers:
Tencent - 24.8%
Redis Labs - 19.5%
Alibaba- 6.7%
Huawei - 5.2%
Amazon.com - 5.2%
Bytedance - 2.0%
NetEase - 1.3%
Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole open source model is scratching each others back but your own just a little bit more. But you make it sound as if aws was hypocritical for contributing and at the same time making money with it. Well ehh, isn't that the whole deal?
No, not given the people who created Redis, built distribution, made it a standard didn’t get paid. Open source isn’t about letting someone else gain from your work. It’s about openness. That’s why it’s of course in AWS’ benefit to support a fork. They claim to have helped the project therefore should be trusted going forward, despite latching onto it after the work was done to gain adoption. That’s fairly controllin…
Were the creators of Redis responsible for making it a standard, or was it some early cloud "influencers" who stumbled upon it and promoted it in their resources?