2 ms·

It sounds like your opinion is that the communication around the relicensing was the issue rather the relicensing itself, but from the standpoint of the people

by saghm 2y ago

It sounds like your opinion is that the communication around the relicensing was the issue rather the relicensing itself, but from the standpoint of the people who decided there was enough of an issue to switch away from Redis, is that the case? As an outsider to the Redis community both before and after the schism, I don't know that you're wrong, but I have to imagine that if I were someone concerned enough to consider forking (or switching to a fork), I wouldn't be happy with someone involved in the project making a blanket statement about whether my motivations were actually about the licensing or not. Ironically, this seems like it's exactly the type of communication that could exacerbate concerns around licensing.

antirez 2y ago
One thing is the normal user concerns, that are granted, and I understand and respect them. Another thing is forking, that in the specific case of ValKey was an effort whose impulse was provided by companies having an economic damage because of the license switch. So I think those are two orthogonal questions.
- saghm 2y ago
  Hmm, I think I see. If I understand correctly, your opinion is that independent of the motivations of the forks, independent users switching to the forks could have been avoided with better communication? I guess that's a fair stance, although I'm not sure I fully agree with it. From what I can tell, there's a fairly large contingent of open source users who won't be happy with a license being changed to something they don't consider open source regardless of the rationale.
matsemann 2y ago
How many, outside a few vocal voices, actually cares about the licensing? My company would choose Redis 100/100 times, because it's the known and trusted brand, and not some fork they've never even heard of. And the license change doesn't affect us in any way. Additionally, I think it's a bit entitled to be so up in arms about a product everyone is using for free. There is a big issue with how open source is unmaintainable to do in our industry, and I applaud Redis' attempt at trying to fix it.
- saghm 2y ago
  I don't personally have a strong opinion about relicenses to try to prevent competitors from selling cloud-bases services (either in the case of Redis or in general; if anything, having worked at MongoDB at the time when it was relicensed to SSPL biases me a little bit in favor of companies who do relicenses like this). My perception is that there's a non-trivial contingent of users who migrate whenever something like this occurs, but you're not wrong that this might be influenced by a smaller number of louder voices. I do agree with you about open source developers being within their rights to maintain as they see fit. My personal philosophy is that while open source maintainers have no obligation to maintain in a way that conforms to user expectations, users still have the right to voice their opinions on that (although the maintainers are free to ignore it, per the previous point). To me, the distinction that matters isn't about whether users are "entitled" or not but whether they're voicing opinions about an open source project (including decisions about how to maintain it) versus personal insults at individuals. I don't see anything wrong with someone being vocally upset about a license change; I just also don't see anything wrong with a maintainer choosing not to care about it.
  - hodgesrm 2y ago
    > I do agree with you about open source developers being within their rights to maintain as they see fit. I used to agree with this, but it now seems a rather narrow view of how open source actually works. Open source projects tend to make a big deal about being a "community," and this is certainly true of many that are backed by commercial vendors. To me the use of community does imply mutual obligations between developers and users or the word has no meaning. Unless, that is, you think community is just a synonym for "marketing funnel."

by saghm 2y ago

antirez 2y ago

One thing is the normal user concerns, that are granted, and I understand and respect them. Another thing is forking, that in the specific case of ValKey was an effort whose impulse was provided by companies having an economic damage because of the license switch. So I think those are two orthogonal questions.

saghm 2y ago
Hmm, I think I see. If I understand correctly, your opinion is that independent of the motivations of the forks, independent users switching to the forks could have been avoided with better communication? I guess that's a fair stance, although I'm not sure I fully agree with it. From what I can tell, there's a fairly large contingent of open source users who won't be happy with a license being changed to something they don't consider open source regardless of the rationale.

matsemann 2y ago

How many, outside a few vocal voices, actually cares about the licensing? My company would choose Redis 100/100 times, because it's the known and trusted brand, and not some fork they've never even heard of. And the license change doesn't affect us in any way. Additionally, I think it's a bit entitled to be so up in arms about a product everyone is using for free. There is a big issue with how open source is unmaintainable to do in our industry, and I applaud Redis' attempt at trying to fix it.

saghm 2y ago
I don't personally have a strong opinion about relicenses to try to prevent competitors from selling cloud-bases services (either in the case of Redis or in general; if anything, having worked at MongoDB at the time when it was relicensed to SSPL biases me a little bit in favor of companies who do relicenses like this). My perception is that there's a non-trivial contingent of users who migrate whenever something like this occurs, but you're not wrong that this might be influenced by a smaller number of louder voices. I do agree with you about open source developers being within their rights to maintain as they see fit. My personal philosophy is that while open source maintainers have no obligation to maintain in a way that conforms to user expectations, users still have the right to voice their opinions on that (although the maintainers are free to ignore it, per the previous point). To me, the distinction that matters isn't about whether users are "entitled" or not but whether they're voicing opinions about an open source project (including decisions about how to maintain it) versus personal insults at individuals. I don't see anything wrong with someone being vocally upset about a license change; I just also don't see anything wrong with a maintainer choosing not to care about it.
- hodgesrm 2y ago
  > I do agree with you about open source developers being within their rights to maintain as they see fit. I used to agree with this, but it now seems a rather narrow view of how open source actually works. Open source projects tend to make a big deal about being a "community," and this is certainly true of many that are backed by commercial vendors. To me the use of community does imply mutual obligations between developers and users or the word has no meaning. Unless, that is, you think community is just a synonym for "marketing funnel."