3 ms·

Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google. People are upset because Redis is a collaborative project with many people working on it and Redis

Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google. People are upset because Redis is a collaborative project with many people working on it and Redis Ltd wants the sole right to commercialize the work of an entire community. LWN has a good overview: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/966631/8bc9d155d4e2afb3/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/966631/8bc9d155d4e2afb3/ Redis Ltd is only responsible for about 20% of the work.

baq 2y ago
Perhaps true but besides the point, actually - the same companies will happily take your code and make a saas offering out of it on their oligopolistic infrastructures, making it economically unviable to compete with. ...which, given LGPL, will be worse now as they'll simply not share their modifications because that's the legally safest option.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  And well, why not? That is the idea. It's open source.
sotillan 2y ago
Yeah, I think a key point is that Salvatore Sanfilippo, the original developer, maintainer and principle contributor[1] for 11 years, was not a founder of Redis Labs. He joined as an employee in 2015 but resigned in 2020. Perhaps he has equity in Redis Labs, but it's not clear he stands to profit at all from this switch. [1] https://github.com/redis/redis/graphs/contributors https://github.com/redis/redis/graphs/contributors
sanxiyn 2y ago
AWS and Google contributed those under BSD license, being fully informed that Redis Ltd can commercialize like this. It makes perfect sense for AWS and Google to fork immediately after the switch, but for contributions before the switch, there is no basis for AWS and Google to complain Redis Ltd, either legally or morally.
- bunnyfoofoo 2y ago
  Legally, they can't complain, but morally it is icky. Redis is a leech.
  - sanxiyn 2y ago
    If you don't want to be leeched, don't contribute to BSD licensed projects.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
gadders 2y ago
>>Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google Employees on their own time, or paid to do it? So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay?
- drewdevault 2y ago
  >So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay? That's the pitch of the license, essentially, but in practice the SSPL is an utter nightmare to comply with (to the point of being deliberate) and it mainly exists to put a veneer of open source on a proprietary product. In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd, which is the actual point of the license in the end.
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    > In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd Isn’t this exactly what the person you’re replying to was saying?
    - drewdevault 2y ago
      Yes, I realize I worded this poorly. I emphasized this point because this is what makes it non-free/not meet the Open Source Definition; you cannot retain exclusive right to commercialization. But I realize that was not actually something the parent commenter was asking about.
- xorcist 2y ago
  That's what many people seem to think, but it has not been legally challenged yet. We won't know for sure until Google or AWS decides to test the limits, in your jurisdiction. You should probably ask Redis, Inc. what their intention is. Keep in mind, though, the run the risk of being re-rug-pulled. They have changed the license once and they can do it again.

baq 2y ago

Perhaps true but besides the point, actually - the same companies will happily take your code and make a saas offering out of it on their oligopolistic infrastructures, making it economically unviable to compete with. ...which, given LGPL, will be worse now as they'll simply not share their modifications because that's the legally safest option.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
And well, why not? That is the idea. It's open source.

sotillan 2y ago

Yeah, I think a key point is that Salvatore Sanfilippo, the original developer, maintainer and principle contributor[1] for 11 years, was not a founder of Redis Labs. He joined as an employee in 2015 but resigned in 2020. Perhaps he has equity in Redis Labs, but it's not clear he stands to profit at all from this switch. [1] https://github.com/redis/redis/graphs/contributors https://github.com/redis/redis/graphs/contributors

sanxiyn 2y ago

AWS and Google contributed those under BSD license, being fully informed that Redis Ltd can commercialize like this. It makes perfect sense for AWS and Google to fork immediately after the switch, but for contributions before the switch, there is no basis for AWS and Google to complain Redis Ltd, either legally or morally.

bunnyfoofoo 2y ago
Legally, they can't complain, but morally it is icky. Redis is a leech.
- sanxiyn 2y ago
  If you don't want to be leeched, don't contribute to BSD licensed projects.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

gadders 2y ago

>>Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google Employees on their own time, or paid to do it? So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay?

drewdevault 2y ago
>So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay? That's the pitch of the license, essentially, but in practice the SSPL is an utter nightmare to comply with (to the point of being deliberate) and it mainly exists to put a veneer of open source on a proprietary product. In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd, which is the actual point of the license in the end.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > In actual practice you really just cannot offer Redis as a service unless you are Redis Ltd Isn’t this exactly what the person you’re replying to was saying?
  - drewdevault 2y ago
    Yes, I realize I worded this poorly. I emphasized this point because this is what makes it non-free/not meet the Open Source Definition; you cannot retain exclusive right to commercialization. But I realize that was not actually something the parent commenter was asking about.
xorcist 2y ago
That's what many people seem to think, but it has not been legally challenged yet. We won't know for sure until Google or AWS decides to test the limits, in your jurisdiction. You should probably ask Redis, Inc. what their intention is. Keep in mind, though, the run the risk of being re-rug-pulled. They have changed the license once and they can do it again.