3 ms·
> Changes to licensing in leading open source projects like Mongo DB and Redis are reminders that... That the author should do their homeworks and get the fact
by antirez 7y ago
> Changes to licensing in leading open source projects like Mongo DB and Redis are reminders that...
That the author should do their homeworks and get the facts right. Redis is BSD licensed for 10 years now. Redis modules by Redis Labs, never a part of the Redis core, changed license.
Article flagged because I can excuse a casual commenter here but if you write an article about OSS licensing and are not able to show facts in the correct way, for me there is no place on the HN top positions.
- germanier 7y agoIf you choose to profit off a common brand you also have to live with the fallout of that choice. You can't use the Redis name only when it's convenient and say "but that's not real Redis" else. Those "Redis" named products were open source and now are not.
- antirez 7y agoTo be honest in the community it is crystal clear what "Redis" refers to, there could be confusion about the project organization itself versus the company (Redis / Redis Labs), but people now that Redis is what they normally use, download from Github and so forth. So there are no excuses.
- brudgers 7y agoI don't have a dog in the fight. I'm just reading the article casually. I understand the point you are making and have some sense of why Redis has the license structure it has. I don't have any criticism of it. I'm glad for its success. The description of Redis would be out of place in an article about Redis. For an article about licensing, the statements about Redis are not a terrible way of pointing out that there are a myriad of flavors in the world of open source. The description has cosign similarity not relational calculus's exactitude. But I still see why it might elicit your response. Anyway, thanks for all the fish.