Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

redict.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#71

Post by diggan »

yau8edq12i wrote: post #64
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this like a Richard Stallman ideological thing? (EDIT: Genuine question - I'm trying to understand if this is a license purity issue or something else).

Yes, it's an ideological type of thing. Meanwhile, most of the same people don't mind using closed standards like HDMI or kinda proprietary software like Android.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who do mind using HDMI and/or Android but in lack of other realistic alternatives for one or more reasons, end up with the pragmatic choice of using those things anyways.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#72

Post by mattmanser »

treprinum wrote: post #50

Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.

They'll just put that clause in from the start.

And if it grew organically, well OpenSearch is not exactly thriving. One of my clients are using it and it's a massive PITA to be on it.

No idea how badly it affected enterprise revenue for ElasticSearch though, but ES is going to win that fight in the long term.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#73

Post by fmajid »

treprinum wrote: post #60
marcinzm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing idealistic involved. Startups want users more than they want revenue. Thus they open source it, use VC money to cover the loses and then eventually try to squeeze those users for money. Redis Labs also did not in any way make Redis. They came in later to exploit the already open source project for their own benefit.

Ok, I was mistaken then. I thought Redis Labs folks created Redis initially.

No, they didn't, although they misleadingly claimed to be the "Home of Redis" for a number of years. Then they hired Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez), the author of Redis, and eventually purchased the copyright from him. Very sleazy outfit that fully deserves all the scorn poured on them.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#74

Post by wink »

Macha wrote: post #37
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this like a Richard Stallman ideological thing? (EDIT: Genuine question - I'm trying to understand if this is a license purity issue or something else).

People like having choice. The SSPL provides less choice than open source licenses. It came about because users were utilising their choice in way the project leaders didn't like, because they didn't directly financially benefit from it. But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today. If it had launched as some proprietary single-vendor cloud service, people would have kept using mem…

> But without that choice, arguably Redis would not have reached where it is today.

I'd honestly love to know how many people actually use any of the features added to Redis in the last... 5 or 8 years.

I'm not saying they were useless, but Redis used to be a pretty fine piece of software that could have easily been done for many use cases, 10 years ago.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#75

Post by prmoustache »

yau8edq12i wrote: post #64
gadders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this like a Richard Stallman ideological thing? (EDIT: Genuine question - I'm trying to understand if this is a license purity issue or something else).

Yes, it's an ideological type of thing. Meanwhile, most of the same people don't mind using closed standards like HDMI or kinda proprietary software like Android.

I don't think your snarky remark about hdmi or android is pertinent.

Regardless is stuff is open or proprietary, nobody like when the terms of a contract change without their consent. People/companies have adopted redis under a specific license, which really is kind of a binding contract, then one day under a new release the terms have changed making it incompatible with their intended use. It is only natural that an alternative, and in this case a fork appears.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#76

Post by skywhopper »

endisneigh wrote: post #69

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Do BSD or MIT and be done with it. It seems needlessly ideological. Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git?

Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#77

Post by endisneigh »

skywhopper wrote: post #76
endisneigh wrote: post #69

I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no? I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Do BSD or MIT and be done with it. It seems needlessly ideological. Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance?

Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#78

Post by ksec »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
skywhopper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Because "Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached" implies GPL ( or CopyLeft, Non-BSD / MIT license ) have strings attached.

So the parent was asking isn't Linux Open Source but with strings attached? And if so are you happy with Linux?

Although I am assume what you meant was that Redis was originally a BSD / MIT, and re-licensing it to LGPL seems ideological. But I could be wrong.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#79

Post by RUnconcerned »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
skywhopper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

The GPL has more strings attached than the LGPL.

Re: Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available

#80

Post by forgotpwd16 »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
skywhopper wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you feel the same way about Linux and Git? Anyway, the Redict team are doing their thing and letting Redis and Valkey be. You’re the one insisting on Redict doing things the way you would like, so who exactly is being ideological?

Isn’t Linux GPL? What’s the relevance? Edit: Linux was always GPL, Redis was not, so I don’t see the relevance.

Redict is LGPL, a less restrictive GPL allowing linking to projects with other licenses.
Post reply on HN