4 ms·

I admit that the communication was not great, but the announcement never said Redis would switch. Maybe I'm a bit biased, because before Redis Labs doing this l

I admit that the communication was not great, but the announcement never said Redis would switch. Maybe I'm a bit biased, because before Redis Labs doing this license switch, we internally even agreed about taking the core BSD, so the goals of the company were always clear, regardless of the fact that this page in the company web site was unclear. But "Redis switching license" was factually incorrect since the start and never stated anywhere.

Murrawhip 8y ago
> but the announcement never said Redis would switch > Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed
- lima 8y ago
  https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ It sounds a bit different when not taken out of context: > Redis is an example of this paradigm. Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Redis Labs is leading and financing the development of open source Redis and deserves to enjoy the fruits of these efforts. Consequently, we decided to add Commons Clause to certain components of open source Redis. Cloud providers will no longer be able to use these components as part of their Redis-as-a-Service offerings, but all other users will be unaffected by this change.
  - detaro 8y ago
    But Redislabs extensions were AGPL, not BSD beforehand.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Yeah, there is literally no way to read that except as a statement of intent to move BSD-licensed Redis into Common Clause, even if that wasn't the first step taken. While this is being portrayed as a communication error, that strains belief—it sounds a lot more like an after-the-fact effort to deal with massive blowback at the very clearly stated intent.
artursapek 8y ago
I understand what you mean. I think you called it "fake news" because you were frustrated about reporters/bloggers/twitter personalities spreading a story without bothering to do any research to see if it's true (because the story is dramatic and easy to spread). The reason people are having issues with you using that term is it has developed a strong association with state-sponsored propaganda campaigns (see: Russia during 2016 election) rather than just lazy, half-assed "journalism", which is what this was. Both of these are real problems, but I wouldn't call the latter "fake news" because it wasn't manufactured by a party intending to harm you. It was just journalists being lazy.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  "Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed" (extensions are AGPL, so this can only refer to Redis core) But yeah, blame lazy journalists.

Murrawhip 8y ago

> but the announcement never said Redis would switch > Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed

lima 8y ago
https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/ It sounds a bit different when not taken out of context: > Redis is an example of this paradigm. Today, most cloud providers offer Redis as a managed service over their infrastructure and enjoy huge income from software that was not developed by them. Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed. Redis Labs is leading and financing the development of open source Redis and deserves to enjoy the fruits of these efforts. Consequently, we decided to add Commons Clause to certain components of open source Redis. Cloud providers will no longer be able to use these components as part of their Redis-as-a-Service offerings, but all other users will be unaffected by this change.
- detaro 8y ago
  But Redislabs extensions were AGPL, not BSD beforehand.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Yeah, there is literally no way to read that except as a statement of intent to move BSD-licensed Redis into Common Clause, even if that wasn't the first step taken. While this is being portrayed as a communication error, that strains belief—it sounds a lot more like an after-the-fact effort to deal with massive blowback at the very clearly stated intent.

artursapek 8y ago

I understand what you mean. I think you called it "fake news" because you were frustrated about reporters/bloggers/twitter personalities spreading a story without bothering to do any research to see if it's true (because the story is dramatic and easy to spread). The reason people are having issues with you using that term is it has developed a strong association with state-sponsored propaganda campaigns (see: Russia during 2016 election) rather than just lazy, half-assed "journalism", which is what this was. Both of these are real problems, but I wouldn't call the latter "fake news" because it wasn't manufactured by a party intending to harm you. It was just journalists being lazy.

Piskvorrr 8y ago
"Redis’ permissive BSD open source license allows them to do so legally, but this must be changed" (extensions are AGPL, so this can only refer to Redis core) But yeah, blame lazy journalists.