4 ms·
Can't believe I missed this Redis change. I know that one path for open source is to build a company around it, but it seems that so many of the big players tha
by jjice 3y ago
Can't believe I missed this Redis change. I know that one path for open source is to build a company around it, but it seems that so many of the big players that have done that do it for the early clout and move to a closed license later on.
After doing some quick reading on the SSPL, I actually don't hate it though. It seems to be completely open for those who use it themselves, but prevents the cloud providers from capitalizing on hosting your software as a product. Not truly open, but I think this is probably an okay middle ground if you want open source software from a business that's developing and selling products around that software.
- quesera 3y agoThe consequence is that the cloud providers just implement the Redis protocol on top of a more conveniently-licensed backend. This turns out to not be that difficult. Postgres can be a great KVS.
- happymellon 3y agoAnd they all have existing KV storage, so they don't even have to use Postgres. OpenRedis anyone?
- happymellon 3y ago> I don't hate it But what's the point? It's not open source, so why bother? Whether you agree with BSD or GPL, OpenSource means you aren't locked to a vendor. The SSPL means that essentially for Redis, you are
- lenerdenator 3y agoThe point is to deliver value to Redis' investors by taking advantage of customers' sclerotic executives and managers whose lack of code-level knowledge of their products means these people will pay a license fee instead of letting the engineers replace it with a FOSS alternative.
- happymellon 3y agoI wasn't asking why Redis would be okay with this, because that's obvious, I was asking why the gpp was happy with this.