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

761–770 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#761

Post by bloomburger »

eek2121 wrote: post #759
miki123211 wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sufficiently capable LLM might be good enough to do cleanroom design on its own, with little to no human assistance. That would destroy the entire idea of copyright as it exists for software. You need one agent that can write a complete specification of any piece of software, either just by using it and inferring how it works, or by reverse engineering if not prohibited by the license. You then have a lawyer in the…

Except that LLMs themselves are close to being killed off for the lack of clean room implementations themselves, at least here in the U.S.

??????

Re: Redis is open source again

#762

Post by Zambyte »

snotreal wrote: post #656
williamstein wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Context: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43829008 - https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1632 - https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/issues/6832 I also built a lot on NATS Jetstream, and I'm questioning my decision in light of the threatened license change.

Why? Have you actually ready Synadia's comments where they made it clear that they always intended to maintain the Apache 2 Version by contributing the stuff they build back to the main repo? It just won't be as fast, so they can make some money first which will fund them giving it away. You said "I also built a lot" Are you making money off those projects or get paid for your services for that use?

FWIW I also build a lot on NATS for work, and we pay Synadia for consulting. We would have taken our business elsewhere due to the license change has that happened.

Re: Redis is open source again

#763

Post by zwaps »

motorest wrote: post #760
matt-p wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how should the maintainers eat? Or there should be none? Should they be Amazon employees?

> So how should the maintainers eat? If a corporation wants to build a business model around FLOSS, it's their responsibility to figure out how to do that. What they cannot do is abuse FLOSS licenses to pull bait-and-switch on their userbase to coerce them to meet their revenue targets.

They did figure it out. Contributors signed CLA and so their license change was absolutely legal and in line with what everyone agreed upon. When you started using the product, you should have known this.

See what I did there?

Re: Redis is open source again

#764

Post by zwaps »

mkhalil wrote: post #472
rank0 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters? Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSearch_(software) : > On September 16, 2024, the Linux Foundation and Amazon Web Services announced the creation of the OpenSearch Software Foundation.[15][16] Ownership of OpenSearch software was transferred from Amazon to OpenSearch Software Foundation, which is organized as an open technical projec…

Most (all? ) open source licenses allow you to sell hosted clusters. They offered a hosted solution well before they changed its license. You can also fork it; but depending on the license, you might need to open-source any fork. : I don't know of any open source license ones that don't allow someone to sell hosted cluster. Even AGPL, which is copyleft, allows it; so long as the hosted version is either: the same as…

Nobody knows what the AGPL actually says, since it has not been determined sufficiently in court (at least in the EU) which is why the license is blacklisted by most companies.

If you want corporate adoption except AWS, you still cannot use AGPL.

I feel like there should be a license that doesn’t allow hyperscalers alone to fork without releasing source while being palatable to smaller companies

Re: Redis is open source again

#765

Post by zwaps »

motorest wrote: post #511
hmottestad wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about Redis, but for Elastic I still feel sorry for them being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon. On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. Amazon is more than willing to sell you their Elasticsearch fork at a loss as long as they can eventually recoup the losses when Elastic inevitably dies.…

> On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. That's specious reasoning at best. The whole point of FLOSS is that anyone is free to use it how they see fit. Whether it's a hobbyist doing a pet project or a FANG using it as their core infrastructure, they are granted the right to use it how they see fit. Tha…

Aws killing off an oss company by shady anti competitive tactics and inherenting their code for free is certainly not in the spirit of oss

So if you are only saying it is their right, well, as per know CLA it is well within the oss companies right to change license for new version

You also knew this when you started using it. Why do you call it a rug pull now when you knew it could happen?

Re: Redis is open source again

#766

Post by zwaps »

mulmen wrote: post #676
KingMob wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everything is working as intended. If this true, than we need something else. Otherwise, expect to see a hell of a lot less new FOSS in the next decade, which will be a pyrrhic victory. If FOSS can't meet the demands of the time, it needs to be updated or replaced.

Selling software is a deadend. Nobody in their right mind will pay for it because the risks are too great. If you want to build a technology business sell services and support.

So compete with AWS or do not make money at all?

What a weird reality, seems hyperscalers have truly won and OSS is dead at the same time

Re: Redis is open source again

#767

Post by fc417fc802 »

amadvance wrote: post #756
fc417fc802 wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Still, it's strange to me that the GPL is considered OpenSource while the SSPL is not. When the GPL was first released, its requirement that all linked modules be GPL-licensed wasn't so different from what the SSPL enforces today at the network level. I see the SSPL as analogous to the GPL, and the AGPL as analogous to the LGPL, essentially relaxing the requirements either on linking (in the case of the LGPL versus G…

Sure, I think your analogy is a reasonable point. There are certainly many different places where the boundary around a functional unit could reasonably be drawn as it pertains to copyright law. There's nothing wrong with having a variety of available choices in that regard when selecting a license.

I think I agree with your analogy. It does sort of seem like SSPL is closing a loophole in the AGPL (which was itself arguably closing a loophole in the GPL). At the same time I don't inherently see an issue with drawing a line about what the ideology does and doesn't include.

One way of interpreting it is that it's a choice that the ideological tenants can include users directly interacting with your program via the network but can't extend to backend network interactions.

Another way of interpreting it is that backend network interactions aren't the issue but rather constraints based around the interpretation of the purpose of a program. The GPL and AGPL arguably regulate based on technical distinctions - is the functional unit constructed using a specific component, is the functional unit what's driving the user interaction. The SSPL on the other hand (specifically the final version that was proposed before being withdrawn [0]) contains the phrases "the primary purpose or features of such Software As A Service" and "the value of the software component of such Software As A Service".

Yet another way of interpreting it is that the current religious leaders just don't want to poke that particular hornets nest right now. That pragmatically speaking the SSPL appears to have a disproportionate impact on an awfully specific business model whereas the existing licenses are much closer to neutral (at least in that regard).

If the boundary is truly being drawn in the wrong place presumably that will be corrected if the error is clearly demonstrated. If the SSPL or something substantially similar becomes widely adopted and ends up facilitating the goals of the ideology in practice then people might be convinced to update their opinions. Even if they don't, as long as user needs are being met I'm not sure it matters what the OSI or FSF or whoever else puts on their list. False negatives (ie omissions) don't seem particularly important here while false positives (ie erroneous inclusions) do.

[0] https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Re: Redis is open source again

#768

Post by zwaps »

lolinder wrote: post #612
porker wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This purist mindset is killing the long term viability of open source. If hyperscalers can make money from successful projects but open source founders can't, in 10 years we'll have fewer open source projects. Licence freedoms don't have to be all or nothing, or apply to everyone in the world. It can be open source and have restrictions. Anything else turns open source into a religion.

Not a religion, but a term with a specific meaning, which meaning implies a collection of freedoms granted without discrimination. People are welcome to use licenses that revoke those freedoms, but calling them FOSS is confusing and muddies the waters. See Llama's license: if it can be Open Source while having restrictions, then having an Acceptable Use Policy is okay, right? So Redis could create a license that bans…

Language is defined by society and not by some foundation setting definitions

Open source means exactly what people say it means and what they want to understand by it

Re: Redis is open source again

#769

Post by paulddraper »

hmottestad wrote: post #371
lolinder wrote: post #225

Earlier 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…

Dunno about Redis, but for Elastic I still feel sorry for them being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon. On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. Amazon is more than willing to sell you their Elasticsearch fork at a loss as long as they can eventually recoup the losses when Elastic inevitably dies.…

How useful if you can’t run it yourself, or for others?

That’s the whole idea, is it not?

Re: Redis is open source again

#770

Post by zwaps »

lolinder wrote: post #615
trgn wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too. talk about kicking down. So no harsh words about the big dogs who, while contributing nothing, and just due to sheer size and scale advantage, are capturing the lion's share of the enterprise value?

> contributing nothing This is a line that gets thrown around very casually, but every assessment I've heard says that the big dogs are quite prolific contributors to these projects. > capturing the lion's share of the enterprise value? Ah, here's the Matt Mullenweg logic creeping in again [0]! This is basically his taunt towards DHH (though at least you're using it to cry foul rather than tease!): "although he has i…

If your last sentence were true, you’d prefer a world where hyperscalers do not fork and close source a FOSS project but the FOSS project continues on to thrive

With copyleft being effectively banned in most companies, it means that there is no viable FOSS business model.

Reality is that for now, many FOSS contributors do it for free in their spare time. Comically critical pieces of infrastructure rely on such goodwill development. But as cozy salaries decline and job security does, less people will have time to work for free. We will have less Foss, less innovation, less new viable projects compared to if there were no hyperscalers.

How does this advancing the public good?

Post reply on HN