Redis is open source again

Post by jjmarr » Fri, May 02, 2025, 7:03 AM UTC

Snakes3727 wrote: post #540

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 contributed heavily to a project during its early days and spent almost 2.5 years helping it grow. For awhile i was one of the most active contributors. Then there was talk of turning the project into an actual business, and myself and a few of the original contributers were offered extremely poor paying jobs. That no one took. Then they got a CEO, investors and we were basically forced out of the project unless we…

Post by KingMob » Fri, May 02, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

palata wrote: post #536

rlpb wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at Debian’s philosophy: https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines This predates the OSI definition. The philosophy is about what empowers the user. Business models (or their challenges) have nothing to do with it. It just so happens that empowering the user also empowers competitors.

> It just so happens that empowering the user also empowers competitors. IMHO copyleft licences are better for the user and permissive licences are better for competitors. Still people keep going with permissive licences.

Post by your_challenger » Fri, May 02, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

jjmarr wrote: post #551

Snakes3727 wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I contributed heavily to a project during its early days and spent almost 2.5 years helping it grow. For awhile i was one of the most active contributors. Then there was talk of turning the project into an actual business, and myself and a few of the original contributers were offered extremely poor paying jobs. That no one took. Then they got a CEO, investors and we were basically forced out of the project unless we…

If you're the most active contributor, you could've just forked it yourself, launched it as a SaaS, and been the CEO.

Post by palata » Fri, May 02, 2025, 7:06 AM UTC

larodi wrote: post #542

growse wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a suddenly emerging "gotcha". This risk has always existed. It existed when they chose to open source it in the first place. Time and time again we see the lesson being learned the hard way that "if your business value is your codebase, it's hard to build a business whilst literally giving it away".

> "if your business value is your codebase, it's hard to build a business whilst literally giving it away". perhaps then it comes as no surprise that some very outspoken open-source proponents do not open-source their core business components. I can understand they do it in order to exist as a company, as busineses, but I don't understand why they have to endure being shamed for staying closed-source, while all their…

Post by geysersam » Fri, May 02, 2025, 7:08 AM UTC

md3911027514 wrote: post #14

Our company made the switch over to Valkey, and we've invested hundreds of engineering hours into it already. I don't see us switching back at this point especially when it's clear Redis could easily pull the bait-and-switch again.