3 ms·

> Uh, this article is so strangely written. What part do you think is strange? To me, the article presents an alternate narrative that (in my opinion) rightly

by apgwoz 3y ago

> Uh, this article is so strangely written. What part do you think is strange? To me, the article presents an alternate narrative that (in my opinion) rightly calls out relicensing of F/OSS as the actual fork since it’s being done in a (usually) hostile manner against the wishes of the community that lifted it to be relevant in the first place. I think the crack at Drew is (maybe) fair given the explanation of redemption, but also unnecessary. Drew’s hardline software freedom advocacy is the relevant information to the story. His promise of redict’s safe harbor is backed up by his profound stewardship of other projects.

Kwpolska 3y ago
Redis is the original project and it continues, even if the licence change is a bad move. Redict is a brand new fork, currently at the “rename everything” stage. It may or may not succeed at being the “new Redis”. The people behind “old Redis” probably consider this title misleading and possibly defaming their project. Many people may decide to create other forks (I expect OpenRedis from Amazon any second now). (And I’m not a fan of Drew myself.)
- gkbrk 3y ago
  > Redis is the original project and it continues For many people, Redis is an open-source in-memory data store. Redict is closer both in spirit and in legal usability to the Redis people have been using for many years compared to whatever got the Redis trademark now. If I do an `apt-get upgrade`, I don't expect to schedule calls with lawyers. I imagine most repos will switch to either this one or some other "renamed" projects, with the package name "redis" pointing to one of those.