5 ms·

Hehehe, Reading between the lines. Redis is Hurting, Valkey is making a real difference at pulling the customers away. Elastic and OpenSearch were in simi

Hehehe, Reading between the lines. Redis is Hurting, Valkey is making a real difference at pulling the customers away. Elastic and OpenSearch were in similar situation, so Elastic went on to change license back to (more restrictive) Open Source License. Redis went different route by bringing Redis founder back. I wonder if they go back on their license change next or do they think Redis founder endorsing license change, despite his previous promises of Redis being Open Source forever is enough ? Time will tell.

antirez 2y ago
Except this is not true: I mean, I asked to rejoin, not because I evaluated the situation of the company, but since I wanted to do more hacking / community stuff. So you see what happens trying to read too much between the lines? That you invent what satisfies your needs as a reader, but drives you away from what actually happened. P.S. at Redis they didn't expected this at all and were really surprised. And about switching to a more open license, who knows? Maybe we will be doing that as well if it offers enough protection - I'm not in charge for such decision but... I can suggest things -, so thank you for the idea (kidding apart, I was already talking about this possibility inside the company).
- PeterZaitsev 2y ago
  Perhaps. I've seen people seen/write all kind of stuff when serious money are involved, and I also was offered to just just that on number of occasions. I appreciate your honesty in disclosing what you still have Redis Labs stock, and assuming it is anything reasonable their value at future IPO would be much larger than any cash compensation which you might be getting as the part of the deal. Reality is you did not fulfil (chose to or could not, I do not know) your public promise to keep Redis Open Source https://antirez.com/news/120 https://antirez.com/news/120 I hope your return will positively impact Redis as Open Source Project. Yet I'm disappointed to read your position on the Redis License - seeing cloud non compete license "basically as good as open source", as I far as I'm concern for many users which want to have software ran for them, and consume it as DBaaS it is no different to proprietary license, as it prevents competition.
  - strbean 2y ago
    It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their modifications". The hosted vs. distributed loophole is just that, a loophole. If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. I understand complaints about a lack of clear boundaries or overreach in these licenses. But acting like these aren't attempting to close a loophole being abused seems crazy to me.
    - orra 2y ago
      > If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. Well, no on the first one. We know exactly what the GPL looks like to protect users against proprietary network hosted software: the GNU Affero General Public License.
      - debugnik 2y ago
        But SSPL is already a modification of AGPL, so its terms don't seem to have be sufficient. The SSPL's network provision also requires SaaS companies to release the source of any other services and APIs they made the original software dependent on; hard to tell if that's still a valid copyright licence or more of a contract. Contrast them with EUPL, which represents the strongest copyleft the EU commission thinks a licence, as opposed to a contract, could get away with under EU directives (ignoring its compatibility clause). I'm personally wary of AGPL/SSPL not because their terms, but because the viral claises are likely to be a legal fiction where I live.
    - collingreen 2y ago
      This opinion seems to require the idea that targeted license changes that are intentionally devastating (going from "do anything" to requiring relicensing all/some of your stack) will only ever be used against "the bad guys" tm and OF COURSE we agree on who "the bad guys" tm are and OF COURSE that will never be me or you _trust me bro_. Feels like a cliche "first they came for the richest saas providers and we said nothing..."

antirez 2y ago

Except this is not true: I mean, I asked to rejoin, not because I evaluated the situation of the company, but since I wanted to do more hacking / community stuff. So you see what happens trying to read too much between the lines? That you invent what satisfies your needs as a reader, but drives you away from what actually happened. P.S. at Redis they didn't expected this at all and were really surprised. And about switching to a more open license, who knows? Maybe we will be doing that as well if it offers enough protection - I'm not in charge for such decision but... I can suggest things -, so thank you for the idea (kidding apart, I was already talking about this possibility inside the company).

PeterZaitsev 2y ago
Perhaps. I've seen people seen/write all kind of stuff when serious money are involved, and I also was offered to just just that on number of occasions. I appreciate your honesty in disclosing what you still have Redis Labs stock, and assuming it is anything reasonable their value at future IPO would be much larger than any cash compensation which you might be getting as the part of the deal. Reality is you did not fulfil (chose to or could not, I do not know) your public promise to keep Redis Open Source https://antirez.com/news/120 https://antirez.com/news/120 I hope your return will positively impact Redis as Open Source Project. Yet I'm disappointed to read your position on the Redis License - seeing cloud non compete license "basically as good as open source", as I far as I'm concern for many users which want to have software ran for them, and consume it as DBaaS it is no different to proprietary license, as it prevents competition.
- strbean 2y ago
  It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their modifications". The hosted vs. distributed loophole is just that, a loophole. If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. I understand complaints about a lack of clear boundaries or overreach in these licenses. But acting like these aren't attempting to close a loophole being abused seems crazy to me.
  - orra 2y ago
    > If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. Well, no on the first one. We know exactly what the GPL looks like to protect users against proprietary network hosted software: the GNU Affero General Public License.
    - debugnik 2y ago
      But SSPL is already a modification of AGPL, so its terms don't seem to have be sufficient. The SSPL's network provision also requires SaaS companies to release the source of any other services and APIs they made the original software dependent on; hard to tell if that's still a valid copyright licence or more of a contract. Contrast them with EUPL, which represents the strongest copyleft the EU commission thinks a licence, as opposed to a contract, could get away with under EU directives (ignoring its compatibility clause). I'm personally wary of AGPL/SSPL not because their terms, but because the viral claises are likely to be a legal fiction where I live.
  - collingreen 2y ago
    This opinion seems to require the idea that targeted license changes that are intentionally devastating (going from "do anything" to requiring relicensing all/some of your stack) will only ever be used against "the bad guys" tm and OF COURSE we agree on who "the bad guys" tm are and OF COURSE that will never be me or you _trust me bro_. Feels like a cliche "first they came for the richest saas providers and we said nothing..."