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

681–690 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#681

Post by palata »

motorest wrote: post #671
palata wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem. I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Permissive don't protect the users in the first place, so...

> I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem. Why do you believe this is a problem? I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem. > I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Nonsense. At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users, and then feignin…

> I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem.

How in the world did you get there from what I said? Open source code has a licence that says what the copyright owner allows or not. LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (even proprietary code: if you manage to train on the code of Windows without getting caught, you're good).

> At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users

Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore. The licence, copyright, all that is worthless.

> Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms [...]

No clue what you are talking about here.

Re: Redis is open source again

#682

Post by palata »

growse wrote: post #650
pbronez wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So who’s gonna sue an AI company asserting that all code they produce is GPL due to being trained on GPL code?

How is training a model on GPL code and then having it write code any different to having a human read GPL code and then write code? Unless there's a specific copyright claim over a specific piece of code that was copied and published, it's hard to see how the GPL has any relevance.

I see that argument over and over, and I don't understand how people can consider it makes sense.

"My clipboard learned the code, just like a human would. So it should be fine to copy-paste anything and call it my own".

"How is killing a human any different to killing a computer?"

"If humans can vote, why couldn't computers vote as well?"

Can we start at "humans are not computers", maybe?

Re: Redis is open source again

#683

Post by fastball »

bravetraveler wrote: post #598
fastball wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

antirez is not the CEO of Redis.

Sorry, you're right. ICs, CTOs, and CEOs. Oh my. Pardon me for not subscribing to another accountability shell game. I again call Mullenweg. /s in case I haven't piled it on thick enough to make an impact. Read the last link of TFA [0], the last time this came up [1] (noting the timespan) , and extrapolate as necessary. 0: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ (CEO) 1: https://redis.io/blog/redis-license-bsd-will-remain-bsd/…

I'm not really sure what your point is. Salvatore Sanfilippo (aka antirez and the author of this blog post) has never been the CTO or CEO of Redis Ltd. He didn't start it and only briefly worked there (relative to how long it has been around as a company).

Re: Redis is open source again

#684

Post by palata »

_msw_ wrote: post #672
palata wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. They choose a permissive licence, proudly advertise it ("use us instead of our competitor because they are copyleft and we are not"), and then come whining when other competitors benefit from the very fact that they chose a permissive licence.

There are different FOSS communities that hold different values. I come from the copyleft camp because I want to advance Software Freedom objectives for end-users. Others are more interested in advancing software developer freedom, and they find the obligations that are designed to advance end-user rights are unduly burdensome to the software developer. Articles like the one on the FreeBSD website [1] explain why the…

> I don’t see whining from FreeBSD folks about competitors

Sure! Then that's all good! I have nothing against the use of permissive licences (though I am on the copyleft camp too, obviously). Or put it in the public domain.

My problem is with those who do and then whine about it.

Re: Redis is open source again

#685

Post by palata »

motorest wrote: post #670
palata wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters? The problem here is that Amazon is in a position where they can fork and sell it for a loss in order to crush the competition. That would be the point of antitrust, I guess? I mean if regulations were actually enforced.

> The problem here is that Amazon is in a position where they can fork and sell it for a loss in order to crush the competition. Everyone can fork any FLOSS project. That's by design. There are also no restrictions on random people selling services directly or indirectly using said FLOSS projects. If a corporation changes their mind and decide it was a mistake for them to release software as FLOSS, they have the righ…

> Everyone can fork any FLOSS project

But everyone is not in a position where they can put a ton of resources into a project in order to crush the competition and maintain their monopoly.

Which is why I said that the problem is the fact that Amazon is in this position, not the licence.

Re: Redis is open source again

#686

Post by Macha »

jenadine wrote: post #507
Macha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sort of fine. As a personal user, someone could fork and maintain redis in that case, which wasn't true in the SSPL era. Now AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under, but also Redis is so far down my priorities that it wasn't a project I was going to be issuing PRs for anyway.

> AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under, Why not? Is it because only one company can make proprietary fork? Would you rather contribute to MIT software where everyone can make proprietary fork? Or AGPL without CLA where nobody can make proprietary fork?

Yes, the asymmetry is a problem. If the terms the company has to use my contributions is more favorable to them than the terms under which I can use their contributions, then I'm not into playing that game.

Re: Redis is open source again

#687

Post by CaptainFever »

antirez wrote: post #152
rdtsc wrote: post #113

That's great news. I never liked the newly sprung up licenses. I understand the background but always felt a burden having to read and understand them, and wonder how they'd hold up in practice. GPL licenses have been around for decades and is something people, including legal teams, know more about. And when I say "know", I don't mean "like": it could be that this will just make it easier for a particular team to de…

That's a good point, traditional OSS licenses, we can like them or not, but they are "understood".

"Choose boring licenses."

Re: Redis is open source again

#688

Post by bravetraveler »

fastball wrote: post #683
bravetraveler wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, you're right. ICs, CTOs, and CEOs. Oh my. Pardon me for not subscribing to another accountability shell game. I again call Mullenweg. /s in case I haven't piled it on thick enough to make an impact. Read the last link of TFA [0], the last time this came up [1] (noting the timespan) , and extrapolate as necessary. 0: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ (CEO) 1: https://redis.io/blog/redis-license-bsd-will-remain-bsd/…

I'm not really sure what your point is. Salvatore Sanfilippo (aka antirez and the author of this blog post) has never been the CTO or CEO of Redis Ltd. He didn't start it and only briefly worked there (relative to how long it has been around as a company).

antirez isn't the focus of my ire, stop. They simply have the misfortune of proximity. The actual CTO told us 'always BSD'. Now Salvatore is telling us it didn't totally expire. Great!

Except... the CEO forgot. Here's a lesson about AGPL and the Big Bad Cloud. Give me a break or I'll take one.

At risk of confusing things further: YouTube is leaking, is kind of my point. Apologies again for not exhaustively phrasing my criticism. s/ging CEOs/gers/; better?

One last try: I'm happy for the evangelism, I'm less happy about the repeat license discussion. The blogs from all of the employees add a frustrating element. It's a trend now spanning businesses.

With what Mullenweg did, another conveniently forgetful CEO, I'm (admittedly, excessively) cynical.

How you thought I was saying antirez is the CEO is utterly baffling. I have a hard time thinking this is genuine, but rather, a troll. Entirely non-sequitur/failure of compound reasoning.

Re: Redis is open source again

#689

Post by motorest »

palata wrote: post #681
motorest wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem. Why do you believe this is a problem? I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem. > I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Nonsense. At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users, and then feignin…

> I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem. How in the world did you get there from what I said? Open source code has a licence that says what the copyright owner allows or not. LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (even proprietary code: if you manage to train on the code…

> LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (...)

No. Having access to the code does that. You only need a single determined engineer to do that. I mean, do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?

> Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore.

Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because someone used a glorified template engine to write something similar. In fact, your whole blend of comment conveys a complete lack of experience using LLMs in coding applications, because all major assistant coding services do enforce copyright filters even when asking questions.

Re: Redis is open source again

#690

Post by yesterdayjones »

AGPL: Uselessly open-source. Anyone who wants to make money with it, even if it's just one of many components in your tech stack, would have to open-source everything. This drives people to adopt the paid versions of the same software over the open-source version, and that's no doubt the point. Adopting the AGPL is a cold, calculated move.
Post reply on HN