3 ms·

> because they didn't had to pay anything, while the tool maker's salaries were being burned by VC money I think you somehow missed the point where Redis the p

> because they didn't had to pay anything, while the tool maker's salaries were being burned by VC money I think you somehow missed the point where Redis the project existed and was extremely popular before it was owned by what is now Redis the company. The competition for redis in the early days wasn't paid alternatives, it was other open source alternatives; Redis just provided a more featured solution.

pjmlp 3y ago
Which people adopting Redis didn't had to pay for, if they had to, they would rather suffer with those other less capable open source alternatives instead.
- stephenr 3y ago
  The point is that it wasn't developed by VC money. It was bought with VC money after the fact. It wasn't a "demo" for a paid product funded by corporate dollars or VC funding, it was just a thing that someone created, and released as an open source project. It's hilarious that you think the companies dropping open source licenses for the products they bought are going to stop the industry using open source. As I said originally, it's going to have the opposite affect: it's going to make the industry embrace the very nature of open source and create forks of projects, the moment there's a sniff of a corporate buy out, specifically because of this type of activity.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Dreamers will be dreamers. The ongoing uptake in open core, shows where it goes.
  - ghjm 3y ago
    The question here is what motivates individual developers to write big projects and then release them as open source. I think vague dreams of million-dollar deals are part of this for a lot of people. As the developer community becomes more aware of what a grind open source maintainership is, people are already less interested in taking on that responsibility. If we also prevent big money buyouts from happening, I wonder what's left to motivate a future developer to create the next redis.
    - stephenr 3y ago
      Redis was created for the same reason most of us create open source tools: to scratch an itch, to solve a problem (or improve a solution). I find it hard to believe many if any would see "create an open source tool" as a method to become a millionaire.

pjmlp 3y ago

Which people adopting Redis didn't had to pay for, if they had to, they would rather suffer with those other less capable open source alternatives instead.

stephenr 3y ago
The point is that it wasn't developed by VC money. It was bought with VC money after the fact. It wasn't a "demo" for a paid product funded by corporate dollars or VC funding, it was just a thing that someone created, and released as an open source project. It's hilarious that you think the companies dropping open source licenses for the products they bought are going to stop the industry using open source. As I said originally, it's going to have the opposite affect: it's going to make the industry embrace the very nature of open source and create forks of projects, the moment there's a sniff of a corporate buy out, specifically because of this type of activity.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Dreamers will be dreamers. The ongoing uptake in open core, shows where it goes.
- ghjm 3y ago
  The question here is what motivates individual developers to write big projects and then release them as open source. I think vague dreams of million-dollar deals are part of this for a lot of people. As the developer community becomes more aware of what a grind open source maintainership is, people are already less interested in taking on that responsibility. If we also prevent big money buyouts from happening, I wonder what's left to motivate a future developer to create the next redis.
  - stephenr 3y ago
    Redis was created for the same reason most of us create open source tools: to scratch an itch, to solve a problem (or improve a solution). I find it hard to believe many if any would see "create an open source tool" as a method to become a millionaire.