Engineering/ Designing applications with Apache Foundation's software's might be the first option, less pain. It is extremely stressful to change the base architecture. As, AGPL threatening commercial apps to open source their code. It is unfair changing the license after getting popular.
Redis is open source again
601–610 of 815 posts
Re: Redis is open source again
#602Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we just did this whole ride with Elastic [0]: company changes the license out from under the community, community revolts, company gives up and changes it back. Both companies even pulled the same "it worked" excuse ("while it was painful, it worked", "this achieved our goal"). Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later and both companies have sh…
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…
> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.
This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757
https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-p...
Re: Redis is open source again
#603[dead]
Re: Redis is open source again
#604I 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…
Did you sign a Contributor License Agreement?
If not, then I'm pretty sure it's illegal to keep your changes while relicensing, without obtaining your consent.
Re: Redis is open source again
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source. I don't think elastic would've tried the license change because of competition using the open source. The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive.
> Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source. What absurd, twisted logic. No, it does not affect open source. What are you talking about? > The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive. No, the problem is Elastic trying to coerce end-users to pay them for using FLOSS projects. It makes absolutely no difference if AWS provides a managed service or…
So how should the maintainers eat? Or there should be none? Should they be Amazon employees?
Re: Redis is open source again
#606Some of these open source licenses are somewhat flawed when it comes to building a business on things that are "free". Wouldn't it be possible to add a clause to some of these licenses that if you are using open source software and generate a certain amount of revenue from it, something has to be given back to the project. I totally understand that the software is meant to be free but isn't there a balance here, wher…
IMO for that to make sense the license would have to be infectious and even then you run into the anything but trivial and gameable issue of splitting royalties among the tree of dependencies. Redis itself uses other open source libraries and so on. It's a tricky problem but it shouldn't stop us from trying, any amount of no strings attached funding for open source is better than what we have today. Personally I'd like to see it solved by diverting some amount of tax payer money to open source project maintainers, via some hopefully non conflicted government agency that ascertains what projects are more funding worthy than others.
Re: Redis is open source again
#607Lots of cynical takes in this thread - and I get it, there isn't a guarantee they won't relicense again in the future (they have a CLA that would let them) and people feel betrayed by the last license change. I think we should celebrate this anyway. It's a smart decision, it's what the community wanted to happen and it would be great if other companies with janky licenses could see "Redis relicensed to open source an…
It could be cynical, but I think it is important to show severe consequences for breaking trust between a company and its community. Anyone that saw their history and contributes to it must be aware they are doing unpaid work for a company.
Re: Redis is open source again
#608Earlier 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.
Even users of APGL sometimes are clueless about its reach. One example is minio which is AGPL now, and the dev regularly make false statements about the license on their github: https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/13308#issuecomment-929...
Re: Redis is open source again
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can easily see this for a midsize company. While it's likely an easy process to drop in valkey, creating the new instances, migrating apps to those new instances, and making sure there's not some hidden regression (even though it's "drop in") all takes time. At a minimum, 1 or 2 hours per app optimistically. My company has hundreds of apps (hurray microservices). That's where "hundreds of hours" seems pretty reason…
> My company has hundreds of apps (hurray microservices). That's where "hundreds of hours" seems pretty reasonable to me. Sounds like a huge disadvantage in your company’s choice of software architecture to me.
Indeed. Microservice zealot 'architects' love to ignore the work that has to into each microservice and the overhead of collaboration between services. They'll spend a couple of years pretending to work on that problem in any meaningful way, then move on to a different company to cause similar chaos
Re: Redis is open source again
#610Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we just did this whole ride with Elastic [0]: company changes the license out from under the community, community revolts, company gives up and changes it back. Both companies even pulled the same "it worked" excuse ("while it was painful, it worked", "this achieved our goal"). Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later and both companies have sh…
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…
> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee.
Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later?
That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much because it calls out specific hyperscalers (no love lost on them in the community) and you still get them to pay their fair share.
Why do people try to ruin everything by SSPL that's overly restrictive and catches everyone else in the blast area, or try to write some clever license that would apply in all cases? Just call out the exact companies that are eating your lunch!
Hyperscaler Anti-Freeloading License (HAFL): If you belong to any of the following companies, or are a subsidiary of them, or operate any of the given cloud platforms and want to offer the service there, pay up: Amazon Web Services (Amazon), Google Cloud Platform (Google), Microsoft Azure (Microsoft), Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group), IBM Cloud (IBM), Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (Oracle), Tencent Cloud (Tencent), SAP Cloud Platform (SAP). This list can be changed at our discretion.