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

801–810 of 815 posts

Re: Redis is open source again

#801

Post by fsckboy »

dharmab wrote: post #695
fsckboy wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

loosely speaking: you said "avoid gpl". reason? "unenforceable". eliminating gpl from consideration, thus you advocate non-copyleft licenses instead. with me so far? but gpl's "unenforceability" could only mean it turns into a non-copyleft license, one which you say one should not use , so if one shouldn't use gpl because in reality it is a non-copyleft license, then you must be against non-copyleft licenses. just to…

Please link to where I said not to use copyleft licenses. Check the usernames carefully. Note that I don't agree that GPL and MIT are equivalent, or that GPL becomes a non-copyleft open source license if not enforceable. IANAL but it might revert to the regular copyright law for wherever you publish software, not an open source license.

just be honest, you don't like GPL. The reason you don't like GPL is not because it's not enforceable, but because you don't want to enforce it, or be subject to its strictures. Your argument that you use MIT because GPL is unenforceable makes no sense, as I pointed out.

(also, it is enforceable and has been enforced, but that's a separate topic.)

Re: Redis is open source again

#802

Post by KingMob »

palata wrote: post #558
KingMob wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehhh, Amazon offers a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL. I'm not so sure that.

Which means that they have to share their changes to Grafana, doesn't it?

That's not what I'm getting at.

Amazon hosting Grafana means it's not only "permissive licences are better for competitors".

Copyleft licenses don't present obstacle to competitors that people seem to believe.

Re: Redis is open source again

#803

Post by KingMob »

lolinder wrote: post #618
KingMob wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the OSI and FSF are trapped with their most hardcore followers, and can't effectively change, assuming they even wanted to. As for Stallman... his idea of freedom is very narrowly-scoped. In particular, it makes no distinction between hobbyists and megacorps, and is completely blind with respect to economics. By lumping hobbyists with companies, it makes the category error of extending human rights to co…

Corporations are collections of humans. There are certain ways in which extending human rights to corporations a mistake, but allowing them to use free software isn't one of them: either the individuals in the company are able to use the software or they are not, and if they are not then the software is not free.

> allowing them to use free software isn't one of them

I never said corps shouldn't be allowed to use free software.

But I do think corps should not be allowed to be economic free riders of any software.

Re: Redis is open source again

#804

Post by bccdee »

growse wrote: post #746
bccdee wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because, unlike humans, LLMs reliably reproduce exact excerpts from their training data. It's very easy to get image generation models to spit out screenshots from movies.

That doesn't mean that all of the output from an LLM trained on GPL code is a derivative work (and therefore GPL'd too).

A model that provably engages in systematic, difficult-to-detect plagiarism must itself be considered plagiaristic.

Re: Redis is open source again

#805

Post by arghwhat »

whizzter wrote: post #694
arghwhat wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's... Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a KV store. It's a hashmap on the network.

The difference is that Redis is single-threaded, the value proposition of Redis was/is a fast (in-memory) simple (single-threaded) server to serve things so much faster than a traditional DB. It was a perfect fit and became popular with the Ruby/Rails community,etc since those environments combined with traditional SQL servers are slogs compared to what a fast server like Redis could do. As good as Redis is, modern c…

I feel like most of the obsession over Redis came from old school cgi-esque server side apps that couldn't easily maintain state themselves...

Nowadays your webapp is often a persistent, multi-threaded web server where you can cache whatever temporary state you want far more efficiently than reaching out to a KV store.

Using postgres and caching common results becomes a non-issue even at scale. The main area where a super fast KV store shines is when you need to share a very large number of keys, where many servers only need to access a random subset and isn't interested in maintaining the full set and getting updates on a bus, where the values often change and needs to be revalidated so caching is ineffective, and where persistence is not needed so a database doesn't matter and a lighter KV store is acceptable.

Re: Redis is open source again

#806

Post by dec0dedab0de »

kstrauser wrote: post #512
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #167

So with redis being AGPL, who counts as a user? If you have a webapp that uses redis on the backend for a task queue, do the users of the webapp count as users of redis, and you then have to provide source to redis? Is there a chance that you might have to release your apps code to be compliant?

No. Users of Redis are the ones connecting to it. Furthermore, the Redis client library that you link into your program is MIT licensed. Unless you embed Redis directly into your app, you'd never have to release your own code to use it.

I think this is correct, at least I hope so.

I wish it were common for projects to explain in common language how they expect the license to work, with examples of how it applies to their project.

Re: Redis is open source again

#807

Post by Brian_K_White »

zwaps wrote: post #796
Brian_K_White wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone else is not wrong, and I did not say they were, and so any argument you try based on that is already voided nonsense before you start. Some people are wrong. It's easy to say that because it has always been true for everything in the world. This topic is no different. If you want to suggest that you are not wrong, or that I am, you have to present an argument that holds water for that, not anything else. No…

I find this interesting. In your view, who should produce oss and under what circumstances? Is sustainability of oss anything you worry about?

Anyone who wants to, for a variety of reasons. No it is not.

Re: Redis is open source again

#808

Post by ray023 »

"We heard from some customers that it is easier for them to operate under an OSI-approved license, so we’ve added that option." ROFL.

Yeah, translation. We got the biggest backlash ever from the license change, the community HATED us so much for this. THIS is why we backpedaled.

Valkey was created and already took over Linux distro package distributions with easy AF drop in replacements installs. I installed Valkey on my VPS for a WordPress Object Cache and I just installed the package, did not even need to edit any file or anything, just runs and works and the WP plugins for Redis just thinks it's Redis. Besides the name as an end user, literally nothing changed. Valkey got a massive interest and if clearly became obvious that it made zero sense, and it was the wrong decision.

Re: Redis is open source again

#809

Post by ray023 »

sigzero wrote: post #265
Alupis wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people switched to Valkey and didn't even know it. A lot like how many users are using MariaDB but think they are using MySQL. Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.

Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.

I LIKE this. Why would you not use a distro if it just removes packages? Or force closed source on you if it's legal to install the binaries? I do not know it's the same on Ubuntu, but I consciously made the decision and typed out the valkey package. If I would not know now about all the BS and would just want Redis I would LOVE for my distro to just install a replacement without me noticing anything. Maybe with a little hint and conformation message during install why this is happening and that is it. Hats off to Fedora maintainers, this is how you make the end user happy!

Re: Redis is open source again

#810

Post by Xss3 »

gkbrk wrote: post #613
KronisLV wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee. Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later? That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much…

You could, but it still wouldn't be open source.

It is still open source it just isn't an open license.
Post reply on HN