3 ms·
The difference is the blow back comes from the users affected. I have no love for Amazon or Google, but if I'm currently using Redis as part of my product or se
by RevEng 2y ago
The difference is the blow back comes from the users affected. I have no love for Amazon or Google, but if I'm currently using Redis as part of my product or service, forcing these new terms is threatening my business because I rely on it. My employer specifically tracks all third party software we use and this new license wouldn't fly - we would be forced to find an alternative.
- voidwtf 2y agosome of these licensing changes have led to larger players forking and/or implementing their own version. personally i appreciate Amazon for sticking it to Oracle with Corretto after the JRE licensing changes.
- devsda 2y ago> but if I'm currently using Redis as part of my product or service, forcing these new terms is threatening my business because I rely on it. Unless your primary product involves selling a hosted version of Redis, simply using it shouldn't affect anyone. Is this not the case ?
- jaggederest 2y agoNo, because now AWS will be selling a fork and virtually everyone will be using that instead. Now we have a broken ecosystem, having to support effectively two libraries or a lowest-common-denominator, but only because they're mad that their open source software was popular (!?) and want a do-over, even though it never would have been popular to begin with if it wasn't open source. All of these open-source-no-wait-lol-jk companies want to have their cake (widespread adoption because it's open source) and eat it too (be rentiers paid to host and support the software they released). It's especially egregious in the case of Redis as Redis Labs hasn't been the primary contributor for a number of years. As is always the case with closed source relicensing it's a landgrab.