3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.