5 ms·

This approach is open core. The open core model funds open source work by finding "market differentiating features" and keeping them proprietary in order to ch

This 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 ago
I 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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - stock_toaster 8y ago
    Would you consider postgres "open core" as well? Citus makes proprietary modules for it, and likely employs some postgres devs. I wouldn't consider postgres "open core" by any means. I would consider Citus "a proprietary extension".
    - jedberg 8y ago
      It's a little different with Redis though, because Redis labs employs the Benevolent Dictator of the project.
    - wvenable 8y ago
      If the majority of the development of an open source product comes from proprietary extensions then it's open core. That's the project's particular monetization model. In this case, it seems like that is the monetization model for Redis (and plenty of other open source projects). It's not the case, as far as I know, for Postgres.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Would you consider postgres "open core" as well? Its not entirely bizarre to say that, though it's farther from undisputable open core than Redis is, as there isn't a single proprietary vendor with as significant a relationship to the open source project as is the case with RedisLabs. > Citus makes proprietary modules for it, and likely employs some postgres devs. And EntrepriseDB. And a number of other proprietary downstream vendors that sponsor significant Postgres development. If PG is open core, it's radically decentralized open core.
- paulddraper 8y ago
  > therefore are able to split Nginx arbitrarily into the Nginx "core" vs. Nginx Plus. Anyone can split the Nginx core codebase arbitrarily into A and A Plus. "Nginx" is trademarked, just as "Redis" trademarked, but I don't think we're talking about trademarks. I think we're talking about code, and the BSD open source code bases can -- in theory -- be changed and evolved by literally anyone. --- > Those distributions don't own Linux. With such permissive OSS licenses, there is little of the traditional concept to the word "own". > Similarly, Ubuntu and RHEL are corporately-developed Linux distributions. Hypothetically, suppose Ubuntu was responsible for over 90% of Linux development, and Ubuntu maintained extensive non-OSS additions to Linux. Or suppose CloudBees was responsible for over 90% of Jenkins development, and CloudBees maintained extensive non-OSS additions to Jenkins. Then yes, in both cases I would absolutely call it open-core. I don't think that's a dirty word; it simple describes the realities of the situation. You seem to be making a distinction with a difference.
- cpitman 8y ago
  Red Hat is not the example you claim, everything in our products is open source, no piece of Open Stack or RHEL is proprietary software or open core. Even when we acquire proprietary software companies, we open source everything. This model works very well for us, but I appreciate that it can be hard to replicate.
  - zapita 8y ago
    When it comes to open-source compliance, I would say RHEL follows the letter of the law but not its spirit. Although the source is available, and I’m sure it’s licensed in a way that meets OSI’s technical definition... it’s unreasonably hard to make useful modifications, contribute them back, or redistribute them. In fact Red Hat deploys specific obsfucation techniques to make it harder for competitors to redistribute RHEL, while technically respecting the OSI definition of “open-source” [1]. I understand the business motivation for playing these sorts of games... but it kind of deflates the notion that Red Hat’s model is anything special or worth emulating. Assuming Redis Labs will accept pull requests and generally follow the process of collaboration casually known as “open source” for their proprietary modules, even if it doesn’t meet the OSI’s technical definition of open source... Then as far as I’m concerned the Redis Labs model is more open, in practice, than RHEL’s. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/
    - antoncohen 8y ago
      As the above poster said, Red Hat open sources everything. They buy proprietary software companies and open source the software. Red Hat officially sponsors the CentOS project. I'm very familiar[1] with the "obfuscation" you linked to, and I think you are missing context. Red Hat used to ship their Linux kernel source RPMs as vanilla Linux kernels plus a series of patches. They switched to releasing the source RPMs as a fully patched kernel tree. They did this because Oracle started providing commercial support for RHEL (not just Oracle Linux), which is how Red Hat makes money. This had no impact on open source redistributions of RHEL, like CentOS, because they just compile the kernel source without modifying it. AFAIK the kernel is the only package they do that with. [1] There was a kernel bug between RHEL 6 RC and GA, the RCs had individual patches, the GA kernel source RPM was pre-patched. Lack of patches made it harder to track down, but it was still possible by applying the patches to the RC kernel, then diffing the patched RC source against the GA source.
- rectang 8y ago
  > For Redis to be "open core", Redis Labs would have to be the owner and copyright-holder of the Redis codebase Cloudera (Hadoop), MapR (Hadoop), Elastic (Lucene), LucidWorks (Lucene/Solr), DataStax (Cassandra), and DataBricks (Spark) are all companies with an "open core" business model around Open Source projects hosted at the Apache Software Foundation. (Those are just off the top of my head -- there are plenty more.) All ASF projects have many copyright holders.
  - itronitron 8y ago
    I think part of the confusion is that we are assigning an attribute to an API that can and should be willfully ignorant of the ecosystem around it. The APIs are not open core but the companies around them are using an open core business model. antirez as the creator of redis is stating that redis is not open core. antirez as an employee of Redis Labs is working for a company that has adopted an open core strategy, and which is using redis as their core, which doesn't make redis the API open core.
  - tssva 8y ago
    Redis labs employs antirez, the Redis trademark is owned by antirez but used by Redis Labs and the open source project has a page for commercial support which directs you to Redis Labs and no other potential commercial support options. The ties between the open source project and a single company are much stronger than any of the examples you have provided. I would argue strong enough to warrant classifying Redis as open core.
- alsadi 8y ago
  Red Hat is wrong example, both RHEL and Openstack has no secret sauce, it's all opensourced.

derefr 8y ago

I 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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- stock_toaster 8y ago
  Would you consider postgres "open core" as well? Citus makes proprietary modules for it, and likely employs some postgres devs. I wouldn't consider postgres "open core" by any means. I would consider Citus "a proprietary extension".
  - jedberg 8y ago
    It's a little different with Redis though, because Redis labs employs the Benevolent Dictator of the project.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    If the majority of the development of an open source product comes from proprietary extensions then it's open core. That's the project's particular monetization model. In this case, it seems like that is the monetization model for Redis (and plenty of other open source projects). It's not the case, as far as I know, for Postgres.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Would you consider postgres "open core" as well? Its not entirely bizarre to say that, though it's farther from undisputable open core than Redis is, as there isn't a single proprietary vendor with as significant a relationship to the open source project as is the case with RedisLabs. > Citus makes proprietary modules for it, and likely employs some postgres devs. And EntrepriseDB. And a number of other proprietary downstream vendors that sponsor significant Postgres development. If PG is open core, it's radically decentralized open core.
paulddraper 8y ago
> therefore are able to split Nginx arbitrarily into the Nginx "core" vs. Nginx Plus. Anyone can split the Nginx core codebase arbitrarily into A and A Plus. "Nginx" is trademarked, just as "Redis" trademarked, but I don't think we're talking about trademarks. I think we're talking about code, and the BSD open source code bases can -- in theory -- be changed and evolved by literally anyone. --- > Those distributions don't own Linux. With such permissive OSS licenses, there is little of the traditional concept to the word "own". > Similarly, Ubuntu and RHEL are corporately-developed Linux distributions. Hypothetically, suppose Ubuntu was responsible for over 90% of Linux development, and Ubuntu maintained extensive non-OSS additions to Linux. Or suppose CloudBees was responsible for over 90% of Jenkins development, and CloudBees maintained extensive non-OSS additions to Jenkins. Then yes, in both cases I would absolutely call it open-core. I don't think that's a dirty word; it simple describes the realities of the situation. You seem to be making a distinction with a difference.
cpitman 8y ago
Red Hat is not the example you claim, everything in our products is open source, no piece of Open Stack or RHEL is proprietary software or open core. Even when we acquire proprietary software companies, we open source everything. This model works very well for us, but I appreciate that it can be hard to replicate.
- zapita 8y ago
  When it comes to open-source compliance, I would say RHEL follows the letter of the law but not its spirit. Although the source is available, and I’m sure it’s licensed in a way that meets OSI’s technical definition... it’s unreasonably hard to make useful modifications, contribute them back, or redistribute them. In fact Red Hat deploys specific obsfucation techniques to make it harder for competitors to redistribute RHEL, while technically respecting the OSI definition of “open-source” [1]. I understand the business motivation for playing these sorts of games... but it kind of deflates the notion that Red Hat’s model is anything special or worth emulating. Assuming Redis Labs will accept pull requests and generally follow the process of collaboration casually known as “open source” for their proprietary modules, even if it doesn’t meet the OSI’s technical definition of open source... Then as far as I’m concerned the Redis Labs model is more open, in practice, than RHEL’s. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/ https://lwn.net/Articles/430098/
  - antoncohen 8y ago
    As the above poster said, Red Hat open sources everything. They buy proprietary software companies and open source the software. Red Hat officially sponsors the CentOS project. I'm very familiar[1] with the "obfuscation" you linked to, and I think you are missing context. Red Hat used to ship their Linux kernel source RPMs as vanilla Linux kernels plus a series of patches. They switched to releasing the source RPMs as a fully patched kernel tree. They did this because Oracle started providing commercial support for RHEL (not just Oracle Linux), which is how Red Hat makes money. This had no impact on open source redistributions of RHEL, like CentOS, because they just compile the kernel source without modifying it. AFAIK the kernel is the only package they do that with. [1] There was a kernel bug between RHEL 6 RC and GA, the RCs had individual patches, the GA kernel source RPM was pre-patched. Lack of patches made it harder to track down, but it was still possible by applying the patches to the RC kernel, then diffing the patched RC source against the GA source.
rectang 8y ago
> For Redis to be "open core", Redis Labs would have to be the owner and copyright-holder of the Redis codebase Cloudera (Hadoop), MapR (Hadoop), Elastic (Lucene), LucidWorks (Lucene/Solr), DataStax (Cassandra), and DataBricks (Spark) are all companies with an "open core" business model around Open Source projects hosted at the Apache Software Foundation. (Those are just off the top of my head -- there are plenty more.) All ASF projects have many copyright holders.
- itronitron 8y ago
  I think part of the confusion is that we are assigning an attribute to an API that can and should be willfully ignorant of the ecosystem around it. The APIs are not open core but the companies around them are using an open core business model. antirez as the creator of redis is stating that redis is not open core. antirez as an employee of Redis Labs is working for a company that has adopted an open core strategy, and which is using redis as their core, which doesn't make redis the API open core.
- tssva 8y ago
  Redis labs employs antirez, the Redis trademark is owned by antirez but used by Redis Labs and the open source project has a page for commercial support which directs you to Redis Labs and no other potential commercial support options. The ties between the open source project and a single company are much stronger than any of the examples you have provided. I would argue strong enough to warrant classifying Redis as open core.
alsadi 8y ago
Red Hat is wrong example, both RHEL and Openstack has no secret sauce, it's all opensourced.