9 ms·
Redis is not “open core”
- nicodjimenez 8y agoInteresting but very difficult to read.
- antirez 8y agoYep that's one of my best "Italian sentence construction translated in English" piece... Sorry, it often comes out like that when I write impulsively.
- oopsman88 8y agoI speak Spanish and it all sounded very natural to me... :-)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- KayL 8y agoIt reminded me of your article [1] (English has been my pain for 15 years). As a non-English speaker, sometimes I wonder if my readers (& clients) do not understand the context or my English. [1] http://antirez.com/news/61 http://antirez.com/news/61
- draw_down 8y agoI really disagree, I think there is something lovely about his writing. I always enjoy reading him expound on a subject.
- anothergoogler 8y agoThis paragraph confuses me: > Redis Labs customers often asked directly for such things. And actually, such features could be cool, but it’s not Redis, I’m not interested, and the open source side of Redis does not have the development force to keep all this things going btw. And this is a major advantage both for Redis and for Redis Labs: it is relatively cheap to pay just me and a few more OSS development time internally, while allocating the rest of the resources to development of things that are useful for the Redis Labs business. There is anyway a great deal of contributions arriving from the community. And I also keep saying “no” to all this fancy ideas… which is also a problem. At first the author says that there is not enough manpower to develop new large-scale Redis features, but then he says that contributions are being turned away.
- antirez 8y agoSorry when saying "no to fancy ideas" I mean to the ideas of doing with Redis more than its natural scope, not saying no to the contributions. I'll clarify.
- mdekkers 8y agoHey, antirez! I don't understand all the recent drama around Redis, I think what you and your crew are doing is absolutely awesome. Thank you for all your hard work. This is your work, and you never have to defend yourself, or give long and deep explanations for what you do with your own work. You don't owe anything to anybody. I hope you become a millionaire :)
- jrumbut 8y agoI think the idea is that plenty of people want to add a feature, but they might not stick around to maintain it. Then the core group is left with the maintenance headache for years to come, and more features makes any changes antirez wants to make more difficult.
- rectang 8y agoThere is also a cost to increasing absolute codebase size, even when people stick around to maintain their contributions. I admire antirez very much for making it a priority to keep the core small.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Keyframe 8y agoThat's a whole lot of rationalisation about how it's not an 'open core' model where text actually supports that it, in fact, is open core. Not that it matters.
- antirez 8y agoI'm sorry if the post looks defensive, my only goal is to have a further discussion about possible models, and how "open core" requires some thought about is real essence, and how IMHO an "added value" model also exists.
- Keyframe 8y agoPersonally, I couldn't care less. Open Core sounds good as well. My impression was that this post was more for you than for readers.
- antirez 8y agoWell you are free to have your opinion about my post, but for me it's a different matter: while I believe that who does "open core" has all the right to do it, and I hope they'll have all the success, I don't think it's always the right model. In the case of Redis, imagine if any HA would be in the closed part, that is, Sentinel and Redis Cluster. The applicability of Redis as free software would be more limited, because in order to work well an open core strategy really needs to take away from the party something really valuable. So I think that an "added value" strategy works better. It leverages the delta between what users (or even more interesting, what enterprises want), and the developers of the product do not. For instance Redis directly queried by JSON is IMHO the least interesting thing to do, yet a lot of people want to do that. Similarly a CRDTs store with the Redis data types is great, even if it ends not being Redis from the POV of latency, memory metrics and so forth. That's my point, one strategy is to take something, remove an important part, and force a subset of people to buy. The other is instead to develop in the OSS a complete product, and focus on offering additional things that different subset of users really would like to see because they have vertical needs here and there.
- maerF0x0 8y ago>For example providing a single node of a database into the open source, and then having the clustering logic and mechanism implemented in a different non-free layer, is an open core technology. > that is able to provide strong guarantees is non free. In an open core business model around an open source system it is fundamental that you take something useful out of the free software part. Isn't that an exact description of the difference between redis clustering and RLEC ? I would say that easy setup and automated (ie, no downtime) recovery are "strong guarantees" and are the "clustering ... mechanism implemented in a different non-free layer" . I support there being a real business model to maintain the FOSS redis. Just wanted to point out that it sounds like you're arguing against yourself about the true nature of Redis / Open Core
- clarkevans 8y agoThis approach is open core. The open core model funds open source work by finding "market differentiating features" and keeping them proprietary in order to charge clients who might pay. Bruce Perens wrote about this in his classic post, "The emerging economic paradigm of Open Source" [2005]. This is what you're doing. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1470/1385 http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1470/13... Frankly, I think it is great that RedisLabs is using proprietary [1] software in order to sustain and fund improvements for real, honest to goodness free & open source software. Thank you. [1] "Commons Clause" is proprietary and non-free for many reasons, the asymmetric permissions are the tell.
- derefr 8y agoI think it's a valid argument. For Redis to be "open core", Redis Labs would have to be the owner and copyright-holder of the Redis codebase (like, say, NGINX Inc. is the owner and copyright holder of the Nginx codebase, and therefore are able to split Nginx arbitrarily into the Nginx "core" vs. Nginx Plus.) But Redis Labs don't own Redis. Redis Labs—despite employing antirez—are just 1. a sponsor of the open-source development of Redis, and 2. a participant in the ecosystem of ancillary Redis products. A closer analogy than "open core" is the thing RedHat, IBM, Dell, etc. do with OpenStack. They all make their own "distributions" of it, which combine the core FOSS OpenStack project with their own proprietary add-ons. OpenStack itself is a FOSS project, and is not "open core." Similarly, Ubuntu and RHEL are corporately-developed Linux distributions. Is the Linux kernel, therefore, "open core"? No. Those distributions don't own Linux. They just bundle it together with their own stuff, and sell the bundle.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wvenable 8y ago> Redis Labs would have to be the owner and copyright-holder of the Redis codebase This is actually an interesting argument but I'm not sure this statement is necessarily or obviously true. What has been put forth in this blog posting is that Redis Labs has created proprietary modules for features that antirez has no intention of accepting into Redis core (like JSON and a full-text search engine). So why does it matter whether or not Redis labs owns the code? NGINX Inc. sells modules for features they aren't putting into the core product as well. It doesn't appear like owning the full copyright to the core makes any difference.
- kolyaio 8y agoInteresting article but the font was so horrible that I ended up changing it in the developers tools.
- ricardobeat 8y agoHorrible in what sense? What browser/OS? Monospace fonts were in use by the entire world 30 years ago, it’s definitely readable.
- coleifer 8y agoSqlite is in the public domain and, like redis, has various apis for writing your own extensions. Some of those extensions are free, some are proprietary (thinking of sqlite encryption extension, although there are free alternatives). There's nothing new about this. Postgres has apis for writing foreign data wrappers, MySQL has pluggable storage engines, etc etc. Is antireZ worried about redis' reputation after the hn license drama? Is he just waxing philosophical? I kept waiting for the post to go somewhere. Redis is awesome. antireZ is doing great work. Its a bummer he felt compelled in some way to write this.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago"We're not open core, we're some entirely new term we've invented for ourselves, please don't dismiss us like you dismissed the dozens of previous people who did exactly what we're doing but with different confusing terminology!" Taking an Open Source product and having paid proprietary addons for additional functionality people are willing to pay for is the definition of the "open core" model. I'd have a lot more respect for what Redis and Neo4j are doing here if they weren't creating a cloud of associated FUD and confusion.
- geofft 8y agoI agree with this - there's nothing wrong with "We're taking extensions and making them proprietary" (unless you share Stallman's belief that proprietary software is inherently immoral). There's nothing wrong with proprietary software being hosted on GitHub, having source available, accepting pull requests, allowing noncommercial redistribution, etc. But the Redis Labs blog post was incredibly confusing when it could have just straight-up said "We're making some plugins proprietary," and this post is awfully embarrassed of the term "open core" when there's nothing to be embarrassed about. Debian, the group that is so doctrinaire about free software that it literally doesn't ship gcc's manpage by default on the grounds that it's nonfree, is happily running the open-core edition of GitLab. You're not doing something bad by saying you need money from paying customers to support the folks working on FOSS. There are lessons to be learned from previous open core efforts, and they won't apply 100%, but no lesson on successful companies applies 100% to a different situation. And they certainly apply more than 0%.
- pabs3 8y ago> Debian ... is happily running the open-core edition of GitLab. I'm not sure I would describe it that way. Certainly some part of the community is happy about it, other parts are certainly not.
- jasonlotito 8y agoSo PostgreSQL is open core, because it's an open source product that people have taken and made paid proprietary addons for additional functionality. Literally what your definition is. I swear, this entire fiasco is utter stupidity and has caused countless worthless debates. This is no big deal. Anyone who thinks this is a big deal doesn't have a clue and should just stop now.
- jahewson 8y agoOk so “Redis” isn’t open core but the RedisLabs ecosystem is - is this really a necessary distinction? The point is that the people funding it are taking something off the table, whatever label you give it. But then what’s wrong with open core? It’s a reasonable business model, so why the denial?
- apetresc 8y agoBut that's exactly the crux of his argument - they're not taking anything away, because the things Redis Labs is working on are things that he would not accept into Redis itself even if someone were to donate the code for free. The Labs modules only exist because of Labs. Whether you believe him or not is your call, but it's not simply a semantic argument.
- antirez 8y agoGlad somebody understood the argument despite it was not very clearly stated.
- karterk 8y agoI don't know why Antirez is on the defensive here about being open core. So what? If that's a viable model for keeping Redis sustainable, then that's all that matters. For what it's worth, having closed sourced extensions for an open source licensed core product (in this case Redis) is the canonical definition of "open core", and this post does not really prove otherwise. Sure, there could be some minor variation here (with Redis Labs not owning Redis directly), but largely it's the same model for all practical purposes.
- mikekchar 8y agoHe's probably worried that someone will think that RedisLabs controls what he decides to put into Redis. By saying that it's not open core, he's stating that his decisions are impartial and not governed by potential revenue loss at RedisLabs. Given how stubborn Antirez can be, personally I'm willing to accept that at face value.
- wvenable 8y agoIt's funny that he specifically mentions not wanting to put into Redis the exact type of software that RedisLabs sells. I'm fully willing to accept at face value his reasoning but we wouldn't even be discussing this again if there wasn't yet another blog post telling us how we all have it wrong. My advice to Antirez is to just leave this alone for a month and I doubt anyone will still care in a week.
- antirez 8y agoYes because Redis Labs is doing basically what we agreed was not in the roadmap of the open source for years... It's not a coincidence, we basically thought that there was potential in the intersection of: (what customers asked /\ what I was not going to do). But the blog post is not defensive, I think that the discussion that started from this Redis licensing thing is truly interesting, and that "open core" is a flat way to classify certain scenarios. Usually it captures well the idea, but certain times not. For instance imagine if Redis Labs would just specialize in writing orchestration software to sell Redis as a service... It's hard to argue that this would be an open core model. And what Redis Labs is doing is kinda that in a different way, to add value outside the space of the OSS project main focus.
- manigandham 8y agoOpen-core describes the business model, not the product. It's about offering (open or proprietary) products and services on top of open-source foundation and is exactly what Redis Labs does, and has always done. This post is very confusing as open-core is not directly relevant to Redis the database, and it seems to be defending something that nobody is accusing it of in the first place.
- wyaeld 8y agoantirez keep doing what you are doing. so many thousands get utility from a small, reliable, piece of software that does what we need, and next release doesn't suddenly increase its surface area. I trust your judgement.
- runningmike 8y agoDeep respect for your work and courage to use BSD for Redis. BUT this communication disaster SHOULD have been prevented and seen in advance. Stay far far away of Common Clause licenses shit. Call it what it is: proprietary software. Nothing wrong with a term that is clear for all. Even if source code is available.
- peterwwillis 8y agoRight. The correct term is "freemium".
- luord 8y ago> In an open core business model around an open source system it is fundamental that you take something useful out of the free software part. Here's the problem and why what he's saying is a distinction without a difference. This rule is arbitrary, I had never seen it before and it's needed for redis not to be open core. It very much is. > I want Redis to be Redis, that is, this general tool that the developer can use in different ways to solve certain problems. It's telling that the best that can be said is this ambiguous language. Nothing prevents these "different ways" and "certain problems" to change at any given moment.
- perlgeek 8y agoWhat are the possible ways to monetize open source software? * support or training. RedHat seems to have cracked this, other large companies struggle to make it work. * building an SaaS around it. That seems to work only if no other large player attempts the same * proprietary extensions (whether you call it "open core" or not). * getting sponsored for adding features (doesn't seem to scale all that well) I have no moral objections to any of those. And then there are things like OTRS AG delaying the release of their own source code, to make the SaaS offering more attractive compared to self-hosting, which kinda annoys me (mostly because it means they can't really accept user-contributed features in a meaningful way).
- snaky 8y ago> getting sponsored for adding features (doesn't seem to scale all that well) And that's a problem.