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

471–480 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#471

Post by cortesoft »

skywhopper wrote: post #387
sigzero wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. Post-closing the source, the thing called “Redis” was the actual fork, and Valkey was the original community-built product. Users who want existing configurations to continue working on the same terms need “install redis” command not to break their licensing expectations.

First, they didn't "close the source". The new license is not closed source. You can argue why you think the license is bad, but it is not closed source.

Second, I don't know about you, but continuing to function in the same way is my primary need for systems I am managing. When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before. Switching binary names breaks that promise.

My setup has scripts that do things like check that a process named "redis" is running... this will break if the process is now called "valkey"

I feel like all the commenters live in some kind of crazy alternate world where purity of license matters more than stability of systems.

Re: Redis is open source again

#472

Post by mkhalil »

rank0 wrote: post #409
hmottestad wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about Redis, but for Elastic I still feel sorry for them being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon. On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. Amazon is more than willing to sell you their Elasticsearch fork at a loss as long as they can eventually recoup the losses when Elastic inevitably dies.…

Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters? Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSearch_(software) : > On September 16, 2024, the Linux Foundation and Amazon Web Services announced the creation of the OpenSearch Software Foundation.[15][16] Ownership of OpenSearch software was transferred from Amazon to OpenSearch Software Foundation, which is organized as an open technical projec…

Most (all?) open source licenses allow you to sell hosted clusters. They offered a hosted solution well before they changed its license. You can also fork it; but depending on the license, you might need to open-source any fork.

: I don't know of any open source license ones that don't allow someone to sell hosted cluster. Even AGPL, which is copyleft, allows it; so long as the hosted version is either: the same as the open-source version, or it's version is also open-sourced.

Re: Redis is open source again

#474

Post by cortesoft »

twoodfin wrote: post #132
benwilber0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why are they spending any time switching away from Redis at all unless they are a hosting provider offering Redis-as-a-service? I wasn't aware the license had any negative affect on private internal use.

The negative effect is that you have to bring the lawyers back in, and they tend to take an extremely conservative position on what might be litigated as offering “Redis-as-a-service”.

Would they? My experience is the lawyers sign off when software is being chosen, but then they aren't consulted again.

After that, it is just updating version numbers. Lawyers don't sign off on version upgrades, why would I bring this to them?

Re: Redis is open source again

#475

Post by PeterZaitsev »

cdelsolar wrote: post #455
kstrauser wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hence "just using it" isn't a viable option. AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network. This is completely, factually, unequivocally, incorrect. You can connect to Redis using their first-party, MIT-licensed client library. You can write proprietary software using that library with no requirement whatsoever to release your software under any particular license (although of course you still ha…

It’s amazing how much FUD there is over GPL/AGPL. I’ve seen at least 10 posts on this thread saying you have to open source your commercial software if you use the new Redis. I don’t know how there could be such a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most common software licenses out there.

If you USE Redis, you do not have to if you Embed Redis you do. Same with GPL

Re: Redis is open source again

#477

Post by fsckboy »

dharmab wrote: post #223
homebrewer wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only real reason to use non-copyleft licenses for these kinds of projects is to be able to do the rug pull, so you should have expected it instead of feeling betrayed. I imagine they will now require copyright assignment or something like that for external contributors to be able to relicense new code under a commercial license.

There are good legal reasons to avoid the GPL; there are open legal questions about whether the GPL and its variants are enforceable.

your comment is logically defective

if that's your "good legal reason" to avoid the GPL, then it's just as much a "good legal reason" not to open source your work at all: if the GPL is not enforceable, that would mean you have used a non-copyleft license, which according to you is the thing you want to avoid for good legal reasons.

Re: Redis is open source again

#478

Post by dharmab »

fsckboy wrote: post #477
dharmab wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are good legal reasons to avoid the GPL; there are open legal questions about whether the GPL and its variants are enforceable.

your comment is logically defective if that's your "good legal reason" to avoid the GPL, then it's just as much a "good legal reason" not to open source your work at all: if the GPL is not enforceable, that would mean you have used a non-copyleft license, which according to you is the thing you want to avoid for good legal reasons.

I didn't say you should avoid non-copyleft licenses? Indeed, all of my own OSS projects are non-copyleft.

Re: Redis is open source again

#479

Post by maxloh »

c0l0 wrote: post #33

I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.) I have a great deal of respect for ant…

I am wondering why did you choose Redict over Valkey? The latter seems to be more popular.

Re: Redis is open source again

#480

Post by amrocha »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #454
echelon wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This keeps happening: 1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS. 2. Some people in the community (original authors, community leads) make a company around the database and continue developing it for years on end. They sometimes raise venture capital to expand the business. 3. Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily mill…

"walking off with your money" This is the heart of all of these stupid takes. There is no "your money" for anyone else to walk off with. Nothing was stolen. If you want to sell software, or rent access to software, then just do that honestly forom the outset. And good luck to you on that. I will not consume it unless I have no other choice, and I will not contribute to it at all period, even tertially by for instance…

You’re living in theoretical fantasy land.

Yeah, it’d be great if everything was open source and everyone was happy.

But that’s not really what happens. Redis and Elastic are popular exactly because there’s entire companies behind it constantly maintaining it, securing it, and adding features.

If you want use open source software at your job that’s a hard requirement. No, you can’t use “MySillyKeyValueCache” that Timmy develops in his free time with no security or compatibility concerns.

Companies cost money to run. Google and AWS exploit open source work for profit, and don’t contribute back enough to ensure its support. This is what you should be really mad about. The internet giants are literally killing open source.

If they have their way you’ll be stuck with their proprietary software. In practice AWS is already there.

Post reply on HN