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

Why AWS Supports Valkey

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#71

Post by sanxiyn »

Y_Y wrote: post #46
dig1 wrote: post #26

It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…

Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness? As far as I know there's nothing that can stop a project from switching license (for for new code only, of course) and this can feel like a deception. There may be a legal/corporate mechanism I don't know about, like a permanent kind of charter, but it seems not. The best option I can think of is giving control (board seats or copyright assignment or wha…

The best option is to use GPL.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#72

Post by zokier »

I would be far more sympathetic to these sspl corporations if they subjected themselves to those same license terms. But instead they play this some animals are more equal than others game.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#73

Post by zokier »

mooreds wrote: post #61
tecoholic wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that people get upset that their software of choice license is changed at the philosophical level. But I don’t get it at the economical level. When a project changes the license for a future version, the older versions are still available in the older open license right? So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? Licen…

What you're missing is that people contribute (time, energy, code, attention) in the now expecting to be able to reap the benefits into the future. When I learn redis, I spend time and want to amortize that over a long period. When I integrate elastic search into my application, I expect to be able to use it in the same way far into the future. Relicensing, as you point out, doesn't affect past versions, but it sure…

But you are not forced to upgrade. You can just keep using the foss version indefinitely exactly the same way as before. That's the great benefit of foss, upstream changes can never force downstreams to do anything.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#74

Post by pizza234 »

dig1 wrote: post #26

It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…

Have you actually taken the time to understand the RSAL and SSPL?

> If you want to use a restrictive license, start your project with it, period

There is essentially only one restriction (the other is about formal notices) imposed by the RSAL, and it forbids to "Commercialize the software or provide it to others as a managed service".

> IMHO, small companies and developers ultimately lose here

This is an uninformed opinion. Nothing changes for small companies and developers. Actually, nothing changes even for larger companies, unless they are cloud providers.

Large companies can actually provide Redis as service for internal use ("as a service internally or to subsidiary companies"). Companies are even free to sell support for Redis.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#75

Post by pizza234 »

chipdart wrote: post #67
tecoholic wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that people get upset that their software of choice license is changed at the philosophical level. But I don’t get it at the economical level. When a project changes the license for a future version, the older versions are still available in the older open license right? So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? Licen…

> So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? It's undoubtedly bait and switch. You have a company that portrays itself as the host of a project that relies on community contributions for maintenance, and all of a sudden that host unilaterally forces a licensing change where all users, including those who have been directly a…

> forces a licensing change where all users [...] are faced with an invoice-or-lawyer threat.

You're spreading misinformation. See other comments about RSAL/SSPL.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#76

Post by TuringNYC »

dig1 wrote: post #26

It's interesting how Redis's decision is often defended while AWS and other 'big corps' are criticized. Let's not forget that Redis was a collaborative effort built on the contributions of many, including those funded by big corporations: gcc/compilers, kernel, editors, VMs, etc. If the Redis authors, who were part of this collaborative ecosystem, decided to change their approach, it's their prerogative. However, it'…

>> IMHO, small companies and developers ultimately lose here. ES and Mongo still use and rely on AWS for their managed offerings. OpenSearch (mainly pushed by AWS) is vibrant and very alive. Redis will be ditched by distros and die a slow death, and (probably) Valkey will be in the next distro major versions. But we (small companies and devs) now have to spend time migrating and moving things around without any additional value.

While I agree with you on not changing licenses mid-way, what is a small software company supposed to do? What is the Day Zero playbook that balances the desire for growth, creating customer value, and co-existing with the big cloud companies? I'm disappointed about the outcomes for companies like Redis/Elastic who obviously did create much value.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#77

Post by [deleted] »

kouteiheika wrote: post #53
Y_Y wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness? As far as I know there's nothing that can stop a project from switching license (for for new code only, of course) and this can feel like a deception. There may be a legal/corporate mechanism I don't know about, like a permanent kind of charter, but it seems not. The best option I can think of is giving control (board seats or copyright assignment or wha…

> Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness? Of course there is. Don't require a CLA and use GPL instead of permissive licenses. Then any derivative work will have to legally be GPL compatible.

[deleted]

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#78

Post by clvx »

chipdart wrote: post #67
tecoholic wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that people get upset that their software of choice license is changed at the philosophical level. But I don’t get it at the economical level. When a project changes the license for a future version, the older versions are still available in the older open license right? So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? Licen…

> So the contributions from collaborative effort is still usable under the same terms in those versions. So what’s this “bait and switch”? It's undoubtedly bait and switch. You have a company that portrays itself as the host of a project that relies on community contributions for maintenance, and all of a sudden that host unilaterally forces a licensing change where all users, including those who have been directly a…

Which is included in the as is part of the license.

A ton of projects have stopped working which forced to fork or replace completely due maintainers not caring anymore, getting sick or just switching priorities. Why is this different. For all the licenses change cases, contributors who disagreed forked and stablished a new route. This is 100% the spirit of the license.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#79

Post by d-z-m »

Big bad Redis Inc. won't let us host their software as a service anymore! Good thing AWS(champions of open-source software) are here to help!

Seriously though, very duplicitous framing by AWS. Ignoring the clear existential threat to Redis's business if they allow other managed offerings to undercut their own.

Re: Why AWS Supports Valkey

#80

Post by zeckalpha »

kouteiheika wrote: post #53
Y_Y wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness? As far as I know there's nothing that can stop a project from switching license (for for new code only, of course) and this can feel like a deception. There may be a legal/corporate mechanism I don't know about, like a permanent kind of charter, but it seems not. The best option I can think of is giving control (board seats or copyright assignment or wha…

> Is there any way to show a real commitment upfront to openness? Of course there is. Don't require a CLA and use GPL instead of permissive licenses. Then any derivative work will have to legally be GPL compatible.

More details on the why behind no CLA: There are dual licensed GPL/Proprietary projects out there. The trick is whether copyright is assigned to a singular entity. If copyright is retained in a distributed (but licensed) manner, then it is harder to relicense.
Post reply on HN