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

721–730 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#721

Post by palata »

flaminHotSpeedo wrote: post #701
immibis wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - that's why their pricing is so detailed and why their services have few limits you can't request them to increase. They can afford to maintain a better branch of Elastic Search or Redis or so on, an drive those companies out of business by the virtue of efficient free market competition. At which point they'll make sure their branch is only useful on their servers, perhaps by adding dependencies on all their int…

> At which point they'll make sure their branch is only useful on their server Can you think of any examples where they've done that? They certainly could, but I can't think of any times they have actually rug-pulled like that, and the motive to do so seems tenuous too. In order for Amazon to do something like this they would need established market dominance, as well as a belief that some new player will hurt their…

Given what Amazon routinely does, this doesn't seem crazy at all. Just look at one of their countless anti-competitive behaviours.

Re: Redis is open source again

#722

Post by ikiris »

palata wrote: post #641
growse wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't "copy anything". They can only copy what they're explicitly legally allowed to. Elastic explicitly allowed AWS to copy and use their source code, then whined about it.

I meant they have the resources to copy any product in a way that will crush the competition. As in, they can build an alternative to an open source project, offer it for free (i.e. at a loss) for years until they capture the market, and then start enshittifying. This is an antitrust problem. > Elastic explicitly allowed AWS to copy and use their source code, then whined about it. Yeah at the very least they should h…

Its really hard to make an argument that someone is selling under market to try to corner it when the alternative is free as well.

Re: Redis is open source again

#723

Post by _msw_ »

palata wrote: post #684
_msw_ wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that really grinds my gears too.

It especially bugs me when company blogs call out “abuse” when they only exist as a company because others gave them the permissions needed to build a business on software they did not author themselves!

Re: Redis is open source again

#724

Post by immibis »

_msw_ wrote: post #211
antirez wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RMS was enough of a genius to understand the potential of open source software, and basically gave us, with GPL and his evangelism (and his code! plenty of it), and the free software movement, the software world we are living now. AGPL reflects the fact that he understood before everybody else that something was happening with software as a service. I love the BSD license, but now who says that AGPL is a cancer is ma…

RMS was not convinced that the Affero clause was a good idea as a general rule, though he approved the Affero-sponsored fork of the GPL that created AGPLv1. Hence, he did not support the addition of network copyleft obligations in GPLv3 during its drafting. RMS has long expressed concerns about "Service as a Software Substitute" [1], and I think he hesitated to endorse the AGPL because it would conflict with his phil…

Without AGPL, you still get SaaSS, but it's GPL so you don't get any source code. The GPL should have had the Affero provision to meet Stallman's wants. Otherwise companies would obviously just work around the license by using SaaSS.

Re: Redis is open source again

#725

Post by Brian_K_White »

amrocha wrote: post #592
palata wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google and AWS exploit open source work for profit, and don’t contribute back enough to ensure its support. This is what you should be really mad about. The internet giants are literally killing open source. They would have to publish their changes if those projects used copyleft licences. Copyleft licences don't force to "contribute back", but they force disclosing the changes, that the community can then benefit…

I like copyleft licenses! But they don’t solve the problem of cloud providers pulling the rug out from under companies based on open source companies.

There is no problem to solve because there is no rug to pull out. Redis are not owed anything and no one stole anything from them.

When I try to make a business hosting copies of an http server, I am not pulling the rug out from under nginx who actually wrote the http server.

And when AWS does that better and than me, they are not pulling any rug out from under me, or at least not in any way that is special to any of the software involved, just plain old bigger businesses vs little businesses, no different than say Safelite vs Joe the Glass Guy.

Re: Redis is open source again

#726

Post by j1elo »

palata wrote: post #541
cdelsolar wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn’t mean you need to open source your commercial product if it uses Redis. AGPLV3 doesn’t work like that. You need to open source your changes to Redis if you make any, and if your product is distributed through a network.

> You need to open source your changes to Redis I am pretty sure that AGPL makes you distribute your changes to your users, not to Redis.

Classic operator precedence confusion. The phrase is well written, though:

You need (to open source) (your changes to Redis)

I.e. "you need to open source [your changes (that you have made) to the Redis codebase]"

Re: Redis is open source again

#727

Post by pabs3 »

antirez wrote: post #623
pabs3 wrote: post #437

I would love to see Amazon offer a Redis service, comply with the AGPLv3 instead of using the other Redis licensing options and do revenue sharing to incentivise more commercial source-available projects to go that route.

Microsoft does this.

Interesting, is there any more public info about this? If not, have you/Redis considered blogging about it?

Re: Redis is open source again

#728

Post by rank0 »

palata wrote: post #720
growse wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we start at "humans are not computers", maybe? Sure. So it stands to reason that "computers" are not bound by human laws. So an LLM that finds a piece of copyright data out there on the internet, downloads it, and republishes it has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted. My original point was that copyright protections are about (amongst other things) protecting distribution and derivative works…

> So an LLM that finds a piece of copyright data out there on the internet, downloads it, and republishes it has not broken any law? Are you even trying? A gun that kills a person has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted. > I'm not seeing a coherent argument that feeding a copyrighted work (that you obtained legally) into a machine is breaching anyone's copyright. So you don't see how having an automa…

> A gun that kills a person has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.

Yeah dude…its an inanimate object.

Re: Redis is open source again

#729

Post by palata »

j1elo wrote: post #726
palata wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need to open source your changes to Redis I am pretty sure that AGPL makes you distribute your changes to your users, not to Redis.

Classic operator precedence confusion. The phrase is well written, though: You need (to open source) (your changes to Redis) I.e. "you need to open source [your changes (that you have made) to the Redis codebase]"

Oh, got it now. Thanks!

Re: Redis is open source again

#730

Post by fc417fc802 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #204
kstrauser wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part of their explanation for rejecting it do you specifically disagree with?

The entire claim of https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... holds down to "the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor" and the SSPL does not prohibit the use of software in any field of endeavor. The OSI then strays into a lot of nonsense that demonstrates just how bought and paid for they are, such as "the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good",…

I think your entire comment can be reduced to you thinking that some limited subset of discrimination based on usage is acceptable, being justified by the market dynamics. That's a fine viewpoint but it simply isn't the accepted definition of "open source". You might not have been aware of that, or you might think that we'd all be better off if that wasn't the case, but those things simply don't change the reality that there is, in fact, a widely understood definition for the term.

The reason people are such sticklers about that particular definition is because the term carries a lot of weight due to the history behind it. Permitting any drift in the ideology enables things that don't match the history to ride on the coattails of the projects that came before.

It's worth noting that if the SSPL is really so beneficial with zero or near zero drawbacks then there's no need to become embroiled in debates over the ideology to begin with. Plainly state that it isn't "open source", make clear what the difference is, and no one will have any room to complain. You can even coin a new term to make room for license variants. If it's a beneficial arrangement then people will naturally use the license.

Post reply on HN