5 ms·

I’m happy to hear that Redis will remain BSD, but it’s a bit weird to play the “fake news” card. Can you really blame people for interpreting this the wrong way

I’m happy to hear that Redis will remain BSD, but it’s a bit weird to play the “fake news” card. Can you really blame people for interpreting this the wrong way? Especially when the original announcement was specifically targeting cloud providers, who, afaik, are just running vanilla redis. If there is anything that we can learn from this, is that a little bit of forethought when putting these announcements out there is required, and blaming this on the readers is not fair.

lbriner 8y ago
The parts that I noticed were missing from the original announcement include more specifics about the parts of the system that would change licence and also whether the intention was to charge people to use these new parts. It was unclear whether the intention was to stop these cloud providers or to make them pay in some way for what they were doing.
- antirez 8y ago
  Yep, now finally this is updated to specify exactly what changes license. Incidentally: nothing I ever worked to directly. It would be way cooler if also things like RediSearch or RediGraph could still be totally open source, but it's apparently very hard, Common Clause at least will allow it to be free-as-beer and with the source code available.
  - yarosv 8y ago
    > Common Clause at least will allow it to be free-as-beer and with the source code available. The license is very vague. According to this > a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software. What if I have big online shop with huge catalog and my software value "derives from the functionality of RedisSearch"? Do my only option not to host it at Redis Labs?
    - derefr 8y ago
      > my software value "derives from the functionality of RedisSearch" Your software might just literally be 99% RedisSearch, but you're not making money from your software (e.g. by selling it); you're making money from operating your software, combined with content (e.g. by using it to facilitate e-commerce transactions.) You'd be in trouble if you wanted to white-label "your technology" and sell it as a platform for other people to run their own online shops on, because it's not really "your technology" to sell. But if your play isn't specifically that, then you're fine. Also, > Do my only option not to host it at Redis Labs? this wouldn't be an option. The whole point of this license is that the software "RedisSearch" is owned by Redis Labs. Hosting it with Redis Labs themselves, or not, is irrelevant. You have to license the software (if you're deploying it yourself)—or rely on your DBaaS provider to license it for you (if they're deploying it.) Basically exactly like a software patent, come to think of it.
meowface 8y ago
I don't think he's blaming people, but it does seem odd if he had no input at all into the Redis Labs announcement.
antirez 8y ago
Honestly my colleagues did a poor job with such an announcement there, and I did not get a chance to read it (which is actually a good thing, it means that the OSS division, I'm part of, is independent and can work to the Github repositories without caring about what the commercial side does). But it was kinda of a manifest to announce that certain things made inside Redis Labs are now Common Clause licensed. In doubt, why not asking? Also people that follow me and Redis for years getting trapped into this idea is very strange, I would never do that and without explaining, prior notice, and so forth. So yep the Common Clause page at Redis Labs sucked but in doubt ask instead of creating news out of no actual information.
- l2dy 8y ago
  The abbreviation "CC" will be confusing if Commons Clause got popular… We already have Creative Commons licenses.
  - antirez 8y ago
    Agreed, fixed.
    - millette 8y ago
      Utterly confused. Does this have anything to do with Creative Commons licences? That's what the articles calls it in its first and last sentences.
  - jpobst 8y ago
    Particularly because the linked post calls it "Creative Common" twice and "Common Clause" elsewhere.
  - tango24 8y ago
    When I see CC, I also tend to think it means Common Criteria : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria
- dilap 8y ago
adrianmonk 8y ago
I agree with your complaint but I wouldn't use the terminology "fake news". To me, that's more of a specific term that refers to media bias as a propaganda tool. Whereas this is more of a rumor mill going wild as rumor mills naturally tend to do. But yes, while hoards of people behave in a bit of a crazy manner, it is a known thing, and if you're responsible for public communication, you should understand those quirks and their predictable consequences. And you should realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure by just making everything as clear as possible from the beginning.
- marshray 8y ago
  To be precise, the term 'fake news' is an accusation against the media, used as a propaganda tactic, and most often false.

lbriner 8y ago

The parts that I noticed were missing from the original announcement include more specifics about the parts of the system that would change licence and also whether the intention was to charge people to use these new parts. It was unclear whether the intention was to stop these cloud providers or to make them pay in some way for what they were doing.

antirez 8y ago
Yep, now finally this is updated to specify exactly what changes license. Incidentally: nothing I ever worked to directly. It would be way cooler if also things like RediSearch or RediGraph could still be totally open source, but it's apparently very hard, Common Clause at least will allow it to be free-as-beer and with the source code available.
- yarosv 8y ago
  > Common Clause at least will allow it to be free-as-beer and with the source code available. The license is very vague. According to this > a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software. What if I have big online shop with huge catalog and my software value "derives from the functionality of RedisSearch"? Do my only option not to host it at Redis Labs?
  - derefr 8y ago
    > my software value "derives from the functionality of RedisSearch" Your software might just literally be 99% RedisSearch, but you're not making money from your software (e.g. by selling it); you're making money from operating your software, combined with content (e.g. by using it to facilitate e-commerce transactions.) You'd be in trouble if you wanted to white-label "your technology" and sell it as a platform for other people to run their own online shops on, because it's not really "your technology" to sell. But if your play isn't specifically that, then you're fine. Also, > Do my only option not to host it at Redis Labs? this wouldn't be an option. The whole point of this license is that the software "RedisSearch" is owned by Redis Labs. Hosting it with Redis Labs themselves, or not, is irrelevant. You have to license the software (if you're deploying it yourself)—or rely on your DBaaS provider to license it for you (if they're deploying it.) Basically exactly like a software patent, come to think of it.

meowface 8y ago

I don't think he's blaming people, but it does seem odd if he had no input at all into the Redis Labs announcement.

antirez 8y ago

Honestly my colleagues did a poor job with such an announcement there, and I did not get a chance to read it (which is actually a good thing, it means that the OSS division, I'm part of, is independent and can work to the Github repositories without caring about what the commercial side does). But it was kinda of a manifest to announce that certain things made inside Redis Labs are now Common Clause licensed. In doubt, why not asking? Also people that follow me and Redis for years getting trapped into this idea is very strange, I would never do that and without explaining, prior notice, and so forth. So yep the Common Clause page at Redis Labs sucked but in doubt ask instead of creating news out of no actual information.

l2dy 8y ago
The abbreviation "CC" will be confusing if Commons Clause got popular… We already have Creative Commons licenses.
- antirez 8y ago
  Agreed, fixed.
  - millette 8y ago
    Utterly confused. Does this have anything to do with Creative Commons licences? That's what the articles calls it in its first and last sentences.
- jpobst 8y ago
  Particularly because the linked post calls it "Creative Common" twice and "Common Clause" elsewhere.
- tango24 8y ago
  When I see CC, I also tend to think it means Common Criteria : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria
dilap 8y ago

adrianmonk 8y ago

I agree with your complaint but I wouldn't use the terminology "fake news". To me, that's more of a specific term that refers to media bias as a propaganda tool. Whereas this is more of a rumor mill going wild as rumor mills naturally tend to do. But yes, while hoards of people behave in a bit of a crazy manner, it is a known thing, and if you're responsible for public communication, you should understand those quirks and their predictable consequences. And you should realize that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure by just making everything as clear as possible from the beginning.

marshray 8y ago
To be precise, the term 'fake news' is an accusation against the media, used as a propaganda tactic, and most often false.