5 ms·

So far, the most viable route of FOSS monetization seems to be "open core". Android, SQLite, GitLab, VSCode, Docker to name a few.

wmf 3y ago
Open core companies, including Redis, are the ones switching to fake open source licenses.
- RicoElectrico 3y ago
  Indeed Redis was open core before the switch, sorry that I didn't check. And being open core was not enough for them, SMH. Maybe such is the destiny of foundational open source server software... If it's "cloudable" no profitable business will come out of it.
  - reconditerose 3y ago
    Redis was open before the trademark was acquired from antirez by Garantia Data, who then re-branded themselves as RedisLabs, and then as Redis. This was definitely not a predestined outcome, there are plenty of other foundational open source server software that transitioned to a software foundation. While I worked on the redis core team (https://redis.com/blog/new-governance-for-redis/ https://redis.com/blog/new-governance-for-redis/), I advocated to move it to a foundation.
    - wmf 3y ago
      Foundations don't pay the bills either; see Linkerd.
      - singpolyma3 3y ago
        Yes, but the point is that the project started as, and gained success as, a not-paying-the-bills endeavour. The fact that RedisLabs desires to get enough to pay a bunch of staff is not actually a requirement for redis to exist and thrive, they just happen to own the trademark.
        reconditerose 3y ago
        Exactly. Redis (the company) had plenty of opportunity to monetize either a cloud offering or their enterprise offering. They have a lot of cool technology like vector search and time series extensions that people will readily pay for. They could have found a path of moving the core to a foundation and continuing to make money with their added value. They're choosing to get the value they can out of the open-source stack. It might work out well for them, but I can't believe it will be good in the long term for Redis users.
  - twsted 3y ago
    > Maybe such is the destiny of foundational open source server software... If it's "cloudable" no profitable business will come out of it. I really hope it's not true, but many clues suggest it might be. I like the concept of open core with a very liberal license. Perhaps there should be a special "MIT-X" (an example, it would be certainly not compatible) license with a clause borrowed from that of Llama2 for large organizations, as Additional Commercial Terms [0]. [0] https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/
    - miraculixx 3y ago
      You means this? "2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights."
    - miraculixx 3y ago
      KeyDB, a multithreaded drop-in replacement for Redis, under MIT, owned by Snap. https://docs.keydb.dev/ https://docs.keydb.dev/
      - stephenr 3y ago
        I realise they use the term "drop in replacement", but without Lua support it really isn't. That doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring but lacking a major piece of functionality means it explicitly can't be "dropped in" to replace redis.
justinclift 3y ago
Is SQLite "open core"?
- RicoElectrico 3y ago
  Yes! There are modules such as encryption, compression and more thorough test suite (for safety-critical users) that SQLite authors only offer at charge.
pjmlp 3y ago
Also known as Shareware/Public Domain back in the old days before GNU's adoption.

wmf 3y ago

Open core companies, including Redis, are the ones switching to fake open source licenses.

RicoElectrico 3y ago
Indeed Redis was open core before the switch, sorry that I didn't check. And being open core was not enough for them, SMH. Maybe such is the destiny of foundational open source server software... If it's "cloudable" no profitable business will come out of it.
- reconditerose 3y ago
  Redis was open before the trademark was acquired from antirez by Garantia Data, who then re-branded themselves as RedisLabs, and then as Redis. This was definitely not a predestined outcome, there are plenty of other foundational open source server software that transitioned to a software foundation. While I worked on the redis core team (https://redis.com/blog/new-governance-for-redis/ https://redis.com/blog/new-governance-for-redis/), I advocated to move it to a foundation.
  - wmf 3y ago
    Foundations don't pay the bills either; see Linkerd.
    - singpolyma3 3y ago
      Yes, but the point is that the project started as, and gained success as, a not-paying-the-bills endeavour. The fact that RedisLabs desires to get enough to pay a bunch of staff is not actually a requirement for redis to exist and thrive, they just happen to own the trademark.
      - reconditerose 3y ago
        Exactly. Redis (the company) had plenty of opportunity to monetize either a cloud offering or their enterprise offering. They have a lot of cool technology like vector search and time series extensions that people will readily pay for. They could have found a path of moving the core to a foundation and continuing to make money with their added value. They're choosing to get the value they can out of the open-source stack. It might work out well for them, but I can't believe it will be good in the long term for Redis users.
- twsted 3y ago
  > Maybe such is the destiny of foundational open source server software... If it's "cloudable" no profitable business will come out of it. I really hope it's not true, but many clues suggest it might be. I like the concept of open core with a very liberal license. Perhaps there should be a special "MIT-X" (an example, it would be certainly not compatible) license with a clause borrowed from that of Llama2 for large organizations, as Additional Commercial Terms [0]. [0] https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/
  - miraculixx 3y ago
    You means this? "2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights."
  - miraculixx 3y ago
    KeyDB, a multithreaded drop-in replacement for Redis, under MIT, owned by Snap. https://docs.keydb.dev/ https://docs.keydb.dev/
    - stephenr 3y ago
      I realise they use the term "drop in replacement", but without Lua support it really isn't. That doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring but lacking a major piece of functionality means it explicitly can't be "dropped in" to replace redis.

justinclift 3y ago

Is SQLite "open core"?

RicoElectrico 3y ago
Yes! There are modules such as encryption, compression and more thorough test suite (for safety-critical users) that SQLite authors only offer at charge.

pjmlp 3y ago

Also known as Shareware/Public Domain back in the old days before GNU's adoption.