4 ms·
That's a bit suprising and I think sad. One would expect Github would have at least reached out and informed and thanked you at the very least if not tried to s
by throw2016 10y ago
That's a bit suprising and I think sad. One would expect Github would have at least reached out and informed and thanked you at the very least if not tried to support your project in some active way.
Whenever this comes up on the HN the perspective is quickly shifted to the developer's choice of license but there are no expectations. But let's shift the perspective to the other side. Surely startups and others using open source projects for commercial reasons even if not obligated legally or not expected to by the developers have some ecosystem responsibility to try to contribute back when they can in some meaningful way.
Acquiring open source projects or hiring developers are 'influence plays' to gain control and should not be the only way for commerical projects to contribute.
- antirez 10y agoI understand your POV, and I thank you for your comment, but mine is actually opposite and I want to explain why. I consider Redis, even if the license is different, kinda of the old "Public Domain", that you grab it and do whatever you want, without also expecting much if not what you see the project direction and activity is. However Github I think was the very first big site using Redis and clearly stating it, when it was in beta, so they did a very bold thing and helped Redis a lot to grow up. Github current CEO even wrote the first Redis-based queue system that provided Redis with an huge popularity boost. And they are still using Redis even if no longer for durable data, so it's a 7 years symbiosis going forward. Even if we never exchanged much infos, I think it's fine, I actually think it's the hackers way :-)