hckrnws
I contributed a minor (but imho still neat :p) improvement to Redis under its original license, and personally moved to using redict when the unexpected license change to SSPL was announced - and I was feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase. (Had they switched to AGPL right away, I'd have been perfectly fine with that change from a moral perspective, ftr.)
I have a great deal of respect for antirez and recgnize him as a kind and benevolent member of the FOSS community, but no matter what Redis, Inc. announced or does, they have lost my trust for good, and I will continue to use Redis forks for as long as they exist.
Yeah, we just did this whole ride with Elastic [0]: company changes the license out from under the community, community revolts, company gives up and changes it back. Both companies even pulled the same "it worked" excuse ("while it was painful, it worked", "this achieved our goal").
Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later and both companies have shown themselves to be untrustworthy stewards. They came groveling back when it turned out that community goodwill really did matter after all, but this is definitely a "fool me twice, shame on me" situation.
Dunno about Redis, but for Elastic I still feel sorry for them being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon. On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash. Amazon is more than willing to sell you their Elasticsearch fork at a loss as long as they can eventually recoup the losses when Elastic inevitably dies. At which point they will naturally abandon the open sources side of their fork and continue development in private, at a much slower rate, while doubling the price of the AWS service. At which point you’ll have no choice but the pay up, cause there aren’t any competitors left.
Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters?
Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSearch_(software):
> On September 16, 2024, the Linux Foundation and Amazon Web Services announced the creation of the OpenSearch Software Foundation.[15][16] Ownership of OpenSearch software was transferred from Amazon to OpenSearch Software Foundation, which is organized as an open technical project within the Linux Foundation.
OpenSearch is Apache License 2.0. You can do whatever you want to/with it. How are Elastic the good guys in your mind?
> Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters?
The problem here is that Amazon is in a position where they can fork and sell it for a loss in order to crush the competition.
That would be the point of antitrust, I guess? I mean if regulations were actually enforced.
This is not a suddenly emerging "gotcha".
This risk has always existed. It existed when they chose to open source it in the first place.
Time and time again we see the lesson being learned the hard way that "if your business value is your codebase, it's hard to build a business whilst literally giving it away".
> "if your business value is your codebase, it's hard to build a business whilst literally giving it away".
perhaps then it comes as no surprise that some very outspoken open-source proponents do not open-source their core business components. I can understand they do it in order to exist as a company, as busineses, but I don't understand why they have to endure being shamed for staying closed-source, while all their stack is open. many such companies exist.
and let's add to this all the fact that everything released in 2025 as open-source gets slurped by LLMs for training. so, essentially, you feed bro's models breakfast with your open-source, like it or not. in the very near future we'll be able to perhaps prompt a 'retell' of Redis which is both the same software, but written so that it is not.
in essence there seems to be now little reason to open-source anything at all, and particularly if this is a core-business logic. open-source if you can outpace everybody else (with tech), or else you shouldn't care about the revenue.
A sufficiently capable LLM might be good enough to do cleanroom design on its own, with little to no human assistance. That would destroy the entire idea of copyright as it exists for software.
You need one agent that can write a complete specification of any piece of software, either just by using it and inferring how it works, or by reverse engineering if not prohibited by the license. You then have a lawyer in the middle (human or LLM) review it, removing any bits that are copyrighted. You then need another agent that can re-implement that spec. You just made a perfectly legal clone.
Cleanroom design is a well-established precedent in the US, and has been used before, just with teams of humans instead of LLMs.
I think some companies will be completely unaffected by this, as either the behavior of their code can't easily be infered just from API calls, or because their value actually lies in users / data / business relationships, not the code directly. Stripe would be my go-to example, you can't just reverse-engineer all their optimizations and antifraud models just by getting a developer API key and calling their API endpoints. They also have a lot of relationships with banks and other institutions, which are arguably just as important to their business as their code. Instagram, Uber or Amazon also fall into this bucket somewhat.
I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem.
I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences. Permissive don't protect the users in the first place, so...
> I agree with the fact that LLMs are big open-source laundering machines, and that is a problem.
Why do you believe this is a problem? I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem.
> I mostly see it as a problem for copyleft licences.
Nonsense.
At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users, and then feigning surprise when end users use their software just as the FLOSS license intended.
Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms single out very precise corporations. Apparently they have absolutely no issue if any other cloud provider sells managed services. They single out AWS but completely ignore the fact that the organization behind ValKey includes the likes of Google, Ericsson, and even Oracle of all things. Somehow only AWS is the problem.
> I mean, to believe that you first need to believe that having access to the source code is somehow a problem.
How in the world did you get there from what I said? Open source code has a licence that says what the copyright owner allows or not. LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (even proprietary code: if you manage to train on the code of Windows without getting caught, you're good).
> At most, the problem lies in people ignoring what rights a FLOSS license grants to end users
Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore. The licence, copyright, all that is worthless.
> Also a telltale sign is the fact that these blind criticisms [...]
No clue what you are talking about here.
> LLMs are laundering machine in the sense that they allow anybody to just ignore licences and copyright in all code (...)
No. Having access to the code does that. You only need a single determined engineer to do that. I mean, do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?
> Once it's been used to train an LLM, there is no right anymore.
Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because someone used a glorified template engine to write something similar. In fact, your whole blend of comment conveys a complete lack of experience using LLMs in coding applications, because all major assistant coding services do enforce copyright filters even when asking questions.
> do you believe that until the inception of LLMs the world was completely unaware of the whole concept of reverse engineering stuff?
The scale makes all the difference! A single determined engineer, in their whole life, cannot remotely read all the code that goes into the training phase. How in the world can you believe it is the same thing?
> Nonsense. You do not lose your rights to your work just because [...]
It is only nonsense if you don't try to understand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that if it is impossible to prove that the LLM was trained with copyrighted material, then the copyright doesn't matter.
But maybe your single determined engineer can reverse engineer any trained LLM and extract the copyright code that was used in the training?
So who’s gonna sue an AI company asserting that all code they produce is GPL due to being trained on GPL code?
How is training a model on GPL code and then having it write code any different to having a human read GPL code and then write code?
Unless there's a specific copyright claim over a specific piece of code that was copied and published, it's hard to see how the GPL has any relevance.
Because, unlike humans, LLMs reliably reproduce exact excerpts from their training data. It's very easy to get image generation models to spit out screenshots from movies.
I see that argument over and over, and I don't understand how people can consider it makes sense.
"My clipboard learned the code, just like a human would. So it should be fine to copy-paste anything and call it my own".
"How is killing a human any different to killing a computer?"
"If humans can vote, why couldn't computers vote as well?"
Can we start at "humans are not computers", maybe?
> Can we start at "humans are not computers", maybe?
Sure. So it stands to reason that "computers" are not bound by human laws. So an LLM that finds a piece of copyright data out there on the internet, downloads it, and republishes it has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.
My original point was that copyright protections are about (amongst other things) protecting distribution and derivative works rights. I'm not seeing a coherent argument that feeding a copyrighted work (that you obtained legally) into a machine is breaching anyone's copyright.
> So an LLM that finds a piece of copyright data out there on the internet, downloads it, and republishes it has not broken any law?
Are you even trying? A gun that kills a person has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.
> I'm not seeing a coherent argument that feeding a copyrighted work (that you obtained legally) into a machine is breaching anyone's copyright.
So you don't see how having an automated blackbox that takes copyrighted material as an input and provides a competing alternative that can't be proven to come from the input goes against the idea of copyright protections?
> A gun that kills a person has not broken any law? It certainly can't be prosecuted.
Yeah dude…its an inanimate object.
I feel like nobody cares. It sucks, I know. Like climate change, biodiversity loss, the energy crisis.
Feels like we're pretty much screwed. Doesn't mean it's not a problem.
AI companies have not shied away from slurping anything available with complete disregard for the licensing of the material.
As such, code available is as much a boon to them as open source.
This is exactly what the AGPL was made to combat against. But open source devs still choose more permissive licenses first - presumably to attract corporate clients to use their product (and because devs are suckers to large corporate interests)
This. They choose a permissive licence, proudly advertise it ("use us instead of our competitor because they are copyleft and we are not"), and then come whining when other competitors benefit from the very fact that they chose a permissive licence.
There are different FOSS communities that hold different values. I come from the copyleft camp because I want to advance Software Freedom objectives for end-users. Others are more interested in advancing software developer freedom, and they find the obligations that are designed to advance end-user rights are unduly burdensome to the software developer. Articles like the one on the FreeBSD website [1] explain why they take a different position
I choose to believe that both of these sub-communities of the larger FOSS community are principled in their beliefs. I don’t see whining from FreeBSD folks about competitors, or for-profit companies using all the permissions they give with their choice of license.
> I don’t see whining from FreeBSD folks about competitors
Sure! Then that's all good! I have nothing against the use of permissive licences (though I am on the copyleft camp too, obviously). Or put it in the public domain.
My problem is with those who do and then whine about it.
Yeah, that really grinds my gears too.
It especially bugs me when company blogs call out “abuse” when they only exist as a company because others gave them the permissions needed to build a business on software they did not author themselves!
> This risk has always existed.
Doesn't mean it was not a problem.
The solution to the old problem of "what if someone uses my code to compete with me" is "don't open source your code".
This isn't complicated. It's trade secrets 101.
I'm being disingenuous though. Of course the bait-and-switch merchants know this, they're just banking on getting enough product momentum off the free labour of others before they cash in. That's the plan all along.
I think that is a little unfair. I don't know anything about the companies behind Redis and Elastic. But another possibility is that they want to make a good open source product and create some sort of business around it and find it difficult to make a waterproof moat. I'm sure that there are many other open source companies with the same basic strategy that are just more lucky, e.g. don't get AWS as competition.
> The problem here is that Amazon is in a position where they can fork and sell it for a loss in order to crush the competition.
Everyone can fork any FLOSS project. That's by design. There are also no restrictions on random people selling services directly or indirectly using said FLOSS projects.
If a corporation changes their mind and decide it was a mistake for them to release software as FLOSS, they have the right to do what Redis just did. What they can't do is feign ignorance or do a bait-and-switch to try to coerce their userbase to cough up licensing fees for FLOSS projects.
> Everyone can fork any FLOSS project
But everyone is not in a position where they can put a ton of resources into a project in order to crush the competition and maintain their monopoly.
Which is why I said that the problem is the fact that Amazon is in this position, not the licence.
Do AWS really sell things at a loss?
Sorry, I didn't want to imply that they do. This would be illegal as per antitrust regulations.
What I wanted to say is that AWS using a permissively-licenced project is fine. The project should have thought about the licence beforehand and started with copyleft from the beginning on. Their problem now.
But a more general problem I see is that even if you use a copyleft license for your project, you have the risk to be crushed by anti-competitive behaviours coming from TooBigTech. It's not rare, they do that all the time and the US doesn't enforce anything. And when others (like the EU) try to do it, the US put pressure because they defend their US TooBigTech.
The latter is not a model or licencing issue, it's an antitrust issue. Now Amazon could compete with Redis without doing it illegaly, but they can only because they are so big. And the fact that they are so big is related to the lack of antitrust enforcement (it's documented, TooBigTech have all abused their dominance forever).
Not really. I have done multiple AWS pricing and costing exercises while launching services and there was never a direction from the VP to sell it lower than what it costs to build and operate. Cost to build and operate includes everything from salaries, infrastructure and many other line items. And usually things are projected 3-5 years into the future and P&L analysis must show that eventually the service will make a profit. It does make some assumptions about minimum customer adoption for the profit margins to materialize which eventually becomes part of the product and sales teams goals.
The costing model does allow losses to be incurred in the initial years because building the thing is more expensive at first but then it should settle down and revenue should outpace expenses.
What can happen with these open source products being launched as a service is that that initial cost can be cut down by as much as 50-75% but rarely more than that because you still need to build all the surrounding infrastructure, documentation, UI. It still gives AWS an advantage by relying on an existing body of work they can start with where many problems have been thought through and solved. Also you will likely get a good product roadmap skeleton ready to be prioritized which otherwise can be a huge time sink.
In a nutshell, no. AWS won’t sell a service at a loss (there are exceptions of course) but there is room to incur a loss at the beginning but it is priced to eventually turn a profit. Whether that happens for every service in reality is a different story.
No - that's why their pricing is so detailed and why their services have few limits you can't request them to increase.
They can afford to maintain a better branch of Elastic Search or Redis or so on, an drive those companies out of business by the virtue of efficient free market competition. At which point they'll make sure their branch is only useful on their servers, perhaps by adding dependencies on all their internal microservices - so technically they released the code but you can only run it if you're Amazon.
> At which point they'll make sure their branch is only useful on their server
Can you think of any examples where they've done that? They certainly could, but I can't think of any times they have actually rug-pulled like that, and the motive to do so seems tenuous too. In order for Amazon to do something like this they would need established market dominance, as well as a belief that some new player will hurt their market share enough to justify alienating the FOSS community.
Given what Amazon routinely does, this doesn't seem crazy at all. Just look at one of their countless anti-competitive behaviours.
Most (all?) open source licenses allow you to sell hosted clusters. They offered a hosted solution well before they changed its license. You can also fork it; but depending on the license, you might need to open-source any fork.
: I don't know of any open source license ones that don't allow someone to sell hosted cluster. Even AGPL, which is copyleft, allows it; so long as the hosted version is either: the same as the open-source version, or it's version is also open-sourced.
It’s a copyright license not a EULA. Grants rights for copying and can’t put restrictions on the using part.
Amazon's product had confusing naming and positioning, and lagged in compatibility which created a headache for Elastic.
And they were using an open source piece of software, but scaling it with closed source secret sauce on top of that. The license was saying they'd have to open up their secret sauce or pay, and their response was to leave the table instead.
OpenSearch still lacks tons of really basic functionality from Elastisearch, and watching how far ahead Elasticsearch got as a product shows how much free lunch Amazon was getting... and how much they actually cared about the product when it was time for them to put their money where their mouth was (despite AWS pulling Elastic's yearly revenue every 4 days).
Elasticsearch has generally matured like it has a passionate builder with a vision. They pushed on two major fronts (LLMs and Observability) and managed to execute effectively without letting product quality slip.
Meanwhile OpenSearch is still the place where tickets requesting 3+ year old ES functionality go to die.
-
I'm honestly on the opposite side: how is the hyperscaler offering a strictly inferior product with closed extensions and still managing to eat the main developers' lunches for the sole reason they already have sales pipelines established not the bad guy?
I guess I'm not really someone who believes in infinite scaling rules: something that can work at the individual scale doesn't have to work when hyperscalers do it (like selling hosted clusters)
> Amazon's product had confusing naming and positioning, and lagged in compatibility which created a headache for Elastic.
Irrelevant.
Elastic decided to release software to the public with a license that granted everyone under the sun the right to use it how they saw fit. This included also selling services.
That became a big part of their business model as it drove up it's adoption rates and popularity. If Elastic kept things like Elasticsearch proprietary, they would hardly have the same adoption rates.
You can't have it both ways. Why do you think people drop these projects the moment these corporations decide to pull the rug from under their userbase?
> You can't have it both ways.
I believe that antitrust laws should prevent TooBigTech from being in that position in the first place.
The problem is not the open source licence, but rather the fact that TooBigTech can screw the competition whenever they feel like it.
> I believe that antitrust laws should prevent TooBigTech from being in that position in the first place.
Irrelevant. If you grant a right to everyone under the sun, you do not get to retroactively pull those rights from someone you decided to target.
Of course it is relevant. TooBigTech is killing smaller companies just because it is too big.
When there are issues like this ("we made a successful product and someone forked it and it's killing us"), the "someone" is generally a BigTech, not 3 students in a garage. Then people complain about open source working/not working, and forget that the root problem is the monopoly that is screwing them.
> Of course it is relevant.
No, it is irrelevant. Try to think about it for a second. You release a project under a license that grants everyone the right to use it as they see fit, including building a business on it. Everyone starts using the project as they see fit.
Do you believe you now have the right to retroactively pull the license on a whim?
No, you do not.
> No, it is irrelevant.
Yes, it is relevant.
Try to think about it for a second: multiple problems can exist in parallel:
1. Some company uses a permissive licence, sees a competitor making a proprietary product from their base, and starts whining. Too bad, they should have used a copyleft licence from the beginning on.
2. Some company makes a nice product. TooBigTech sees it and builds an alternative (be it a fork or from scratch, I don't care). TooBigTech offers it for free (because they can, because they are too big) and capture the market. The original smaller company dies, because they can't offer their product for free. Now TooBigTech can start enshittifying because they own the market, again.
> Do you believe you now have the right to retroactively pull the license on a whim?
If you own the copyright to the whole codebase, of course you can. All those contributors who signed a CLA and are now whining should think about that.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Large companies using their scales to compete is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
AWS only gets to compete using their source code because they opened it in the first place. The competition was explicitly invited.
> Large companies using their scales to compete is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
Large companies using their dominant position to compete is not a feature of capitalism. Antitrust laws prevent that. It's just that the US ignores them.
> AWS only gets to compete using their source code because they opened it in the first place. The competition was explicitly invited.
This part I agree with: if you build a permissively-licenced project, you don't get to whine when competitors use it in their own proprietary alternatives.
> Large companies using their scales to compete is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
It's more fundamental that that. It's this idea that a corporation can arbitrarily change licensing terms already granted to end-users to extort them.
This is not limited to any managed service provided by a random cloud provider. The core reasoning is a corporation identifying end-users who are profiting from a service that directly or indirectly involves a project they release to the public under a FLOSS license. They see people getting paid, and retroactively change terms to coerce them into paying them. The same argument they throw at AWS providing a managed service also applies to any company using their project. How does this make any sense?
> It's this idea that a corporation can arbitrarily change licensing terms already granted to end-users to extort them.
If contributors refused to sign CLAs, then corporations would either not get contributions or not be able to arbitrarily change the licence. It's also the contributor's fault if they contribute to a permissive project and give up their copyright. Is it extortion if they agreed to it?
And then those contributors come whining because the corporation does whatever they want. Too bad, don't sign a CLA. And don't contribute to permissively-licenced projects if you don't want your code to end in proprietary products.
> Elastic decided to release software to the public with a license that granted everyone under the sun the right to use it how they saw fit. This included also selling services.
The original licensing decision was made well before the formation of Elastic the company. Maybe Shay didn't quite give it the full consideration. I don't know him super well, but like most developers starting open source projects, I don't think he has a legal background. I confess to a certain about of naivety, thinking that contributors would adhere to the spirit of contribution rather than the absolute letter of the license. I don't think it's unreasonable to have societal expectations above and beyond the legal requirements.
I've been doing open source for ~25 years and it appears to me there's been a distinct shift in how companies approach open source. I feel like what I started with was almost a eutopic ideal and now I'm expected to just do free support work for companies that don't want to pay anything to anyone. I don't see any problem with devs realizing their mistake or changing their mind and updating the license accordingly. For my part, I used to use ASLv2 for everything and now I default to AGPL.
> You can't have it both ways. Why do you think people drop these projects the moment these corporations decide to pull the rug from under their userbase?
Just like you have no legal obligations above what the license says, they have no legal obligations to make their work available under the license you want. It's open source, so feel free to take the commit from version before the license change. Of course, it turns out it's quite a bit messier to have two incompatible versions floating around, but as long as we're limiting ourselves to legal requirements that's a non-issue.
The most obvious reason these projects get dropped after a license change is because they now use a license that needs to be reviewed. It's a lot easier to justify spending on a new AWS service than it is getting a new license approved. But, that was more or less happening anyway. If you're already on AWS it's easier to add a new service than pay for hosting a service with a third party. I don't particularly fault Elastic for not wanting to be Amazon's R & D arm and support team.
We have a lot of systems and infrastructure in place that only mostly work because both parties hold up their own end of an unspoken agreement. Large tech companies have decided they can save money by breaking breaking away from that and just sticking to the letter of the license text. Legally, they have that right, but the other parties have predictably responded. I think what it really shows is our licenses don't fit all scenarios. Maybe I'm okay with individuals and companies with a market cap < $1T using the software under terms akin to open source but don't want to be a de facto employee for a large company reselling my software. We're well past the point of open source being about software freedom.
Most of these projects start off as a developer choosing a license without having the legal background to truly assess it and then they run into an 800 lbs. gorilla with loads of in-house counsel. Blaming them for not thinking it all the way through or realizing the implication of their license choice seems to me counter-productive. Okay, so they made a mistake. What now? They don't want to continue working under the framework where they feel being taken advantage of. I don't think they should be obligated to continue doing so because all of the non-Amazon folks don't want to incur the headache of forking. I'd love to see some of that ire aimed at the company willing to break the illusion to make some extra money than the folks that have freely given away their work for years.
> The original licensing decision was made well before the formation of Elastic the company.
Yes. Those are the terms the software has been distributed with from the inception.
No corporation has the right to pull those rights from end-users, no matter how profitable your shakedown scheme would be.
Well they obviously do have the rights, are you saying they broke the law?
> Well they obviously do have the rights, are you saying they broke the law?
No, they do not. They can release new versions with some other license if they get all contributors to agree. They absolutely cannot pull the FLOSS licenses from existing releases.
> They can release new versions with some other license if they get all contributors to agree.
Contributors must sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) before a contribution will be merged. The CLA signers gave Elastic the right to change licenses, among others, when they signed the agreement. Consequently, Elastic doesn't need to get individual sign-off from each contributor before changing the project license. The code wasn't based on copyleft license, so there's no compulsion to continue using the same licensing terms for all future distributions. That's a motivating factor for many CLAs. If you made a contribution prior to the introduction of the CLA then things get murkier.
> Irrelevant.
You keep spamming this to anyone who replies to you: maybe your take is the irrelevant since it didn't stop them from pulling the rug in the first place?
> people drop these projects the moment
Noisy people always proclaim that they will, and hyperscalers gleefully market their forks... meanwhile it's mostly hyperscaler customers that they weren't going to get in the first place that actually move.
Elasticsearch was source available for 4 years and still saw massive growth.
People tried to spin Redis db-engine rankings dropping as being due to Valkey, but their trendline doesn't seem to have been affected at all by the change: https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_trend/system/Redis
-
But to be more direct, I'm honestly unimpressed with this brand of reductionism.
It's super easy to keep yelling IRRELEVANT THEY WERE RUNNING AN OPEN LIBRARY AND SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED SOMEONE TO SHOW UP WITH A HAULER TO TAKE ALL THE BOOKS, but it's not useful.
I'd also rather have a software ecosystem that uses targeted defenses to counter hyperscalers (which are more like an invasive species) than one that throws up its hands at them.
For anything that isn't Linux-scale, the alternative is that most of the well funded development ends up being from hyperscalers and that just concentrates their power.
Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source.
I don't think elastic would've tried the license change because of competition using the open source.
The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive.
> Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon
Which ones, specifically?
> Yes, anti trust rules should have stopped amazon. But they didn't, this directly hurts open source.
What absurd, twisted logic. No, it does not affect open source. What are you talking about?
> The problem is Amazon, not elastic that's trying to survive.
No, the problem is Elastic trying to coerce end-users to pay them for using FLOSS projects. It makes absolutely no difference if AWS provides a managed service or if I run Elasticsearch in a AWS EC2 instance I pay for.
So how should the maintainers eat? Or there should be none? Should they be Amazon employees?
Personally, as an un-paid OSS maintainer, I chose to go get a job. Other's might choose different paths.
They can create business with closed source software. No one demanded of them to create Apache License software.
> Whats the point of open source if you can't fork or sell hosted clusters?
Is this sarcasm?
Not at all. Free information is free information.
> On principal I will not use the Amazon fork, because I don’t want to support a company that would prefer to fork a project rather than fork over some cash.
That's specious reasoning at best.
The whole point of FLOSS is that anyone is free to use it how they see fit. Whether it's a hobbyist doing a pet project or a FANG using it as their core infrastructure, they are granted the right to use it how they see fit.
That's exactly why they started to use it to begin with. Isn't it?
When a random corporation decides to pull the rug on the established user base expecting to profit from the pain of migrating existing services, it is not the user base who is the bad actor.
> being thrown around like a rag doll by Amazon
Can you elaborate on what exactly Amazon did to Elastic? I read all of their blog posts and the only thing I really got out of it was "they sell hosted Elastic cheaper than we can", which is hardly surprising given that Elastic really just packages up AWS/GCP/Azure cloud infra. That doesn't have to be AWS selling at a loss, AWS just doesn't need to pay itself.
And by all accounts I've read Amazon did contribute back to Elastic development up until Elastic switched the license on them. At that point they forked, but it's hard to blame them when they were deliberately locked out of the original project.
Most of the arguments I've seen against Amazon with regard to Elastic have tended to be very vibe-based. Amazon bullied Elastic because that's always what Amazon does! It's plausible, but it's also plausible that Elastic thought they could use Amazon's terrible reputation as a weapon against it without there being any substance.
Elastic was in the same bind as every company which writes opensource. There's no way to monetize it when a hyperscaler can sell it at much thinner margins.
Either the product is donated to a foundation, or the parent company dies.
While amazon technically wasn't doing anything "wrong", they're effectively squeezing the oxygen out of the ecosystem.
The parameters of the problem are relatively new. SAAS - which is now the norm for how software should be delivered, and opensource - which is old - just don't mix, the incentive structure is completely misaligned. Companies are prodding to see how to get out of this conundrum. Mongodb set the tone with the SSPL, and other midcap just kind of followed suit, what else was there to do, what other approaches could have been taken? Now, as the fallout starts to become clear, there's just a lot more information now on what works and doesn't, and companies are pivoting.
There's no vibes about it, it's brutal reality out there, big tech is strangling the market, and the small guys are figuring a way out, first trying one way, now another.
> Elastic was in the same bind as every company which writes opensource. There's no way to monetize it
It is hard to get customers, especially businesses, to pay for something which is being given away for free.
My understanding is the dispute was mostly about the trademark. Here is a link: https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws (original license change in 2021, not the most recent one).
I sure wish I lived in a world where anti-competitive regulators weren't a joke.
What exactly do you think is anti-competitive about offering an open source product as a service?
Being in a position where you can copy anything and crush competition is a problem.
In terms of antitrust, I believe that if you could prove that Amazon forked and offered the service with the intent to crush the competition, it would be downright illegal. A current case is Meta: back then, Zuckerberg was happily writing (internally) that Facebook needed to buy WhatsApp and Instagram and Snapchat to prevent them from ever competing. This is anti-competitive.
This post explains it well: https://pluralistic.net/2025/04/18/chatty-zucky/#is-you-taki...
Companies that build themselves on selling open source software put themselves in the position where anyone else can copy them and compete with them on price, and price alone. This is clearly the disadvantage of open source. It brings plenty of advantages, which is why people do it - but you can't have only the advantages and no disadvantages of open source.
Open sourcing your product is a risky investment, and as with all risky investments, it might pay out, or it might not.
As I said before, I believe that using permissive licences is a bad idea. I have seen multiple projects choosing a permissive licence as a way to compete against an already established copyleft project, just because it's easier to get adopted by companies. I find it unfair but also a bit stupid: by using a permissive licence, they allow anyone to compete with them with a proprietary fork.
Still, there is an antitrust question (that is slightly orthogonal): if TooBigTech can offer a similar product at a loss (e.g. for free) until they capture the market, then that's a problem. And they can only do it because they are too big, and that is an antitrust issue IMO.
They can't "copy anything".
They can only copy what they're explicitly legally allowed to.
Elastic explicitly allowed AWS to copy and use their source code, then whined about it.
I meant they have the resources to copy any product in a way that will crush the competition.
As in, they can build an alternative to an open source project, offer it for free (i.e. at a loss) for years until they capture the market, and then start enshittifying. This is an antitrust problem.
> Elastic explicitly allowed AWS to copy and use their source code, then whined about it.
Yeah at the very least they should have started with a copyleft licence.
Ah I see what you mean. Yes, agree. But that's orthogonal to OSS and like you say is a reg issue.
Its really hard to make an argument that someone is selling under market to try to corner it when the alternative is free as well.
Well if there is a company paying salaries from it, it's not exactly free.
NATS almost ended up doing it recently, too. Fortunately they caved in just today, after the CNCF and the community protested. [1] While the outcome is great, it was a bunch of drama for nothing, and their reputation has been harmed.
Yep. Actually if Redis would end up in CNCF and Redis Labs could provide commercial hosting, extensions - this would be outcome I would be excited about
Interestingly their CEO states that AWS an Google forking redis and maintaining it separately was their "goal" all along. Because fragmentation is apparently good?
> Because fragmentation is apparently good?
I think it's more "they are no longer piggybacking off our work for free".
I also think what they actually wanted was that plus "...and they paid us".
The reason the ValKey fork happened so fast is that AWS was already sponsoring developers for the open source redis project.
And not merely "some developers", but a member of the Redis Core Team: https://redis.io/blog/redis-core-team-update/
Yeah, the whole "they give nothing back" line might be the worst part of the PR around these changes. It's obvious to anyone familiar with the ecosystem that it's not true, which damages the credibility of Redis's argument in the eyes of the people who matter most.
This keeps happening:
1. People put a lot of work into building databases. The license choice is OSS / FOSS.
2. Some people in the community (original authors, community leads) make a company around the database and continue developing it for years on end. They sometimes raise venture capital to expand the business.
3. Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.
4. The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee.
5. Amazon / Google / Microsoft fork the database. The community revolts. Sometimes the people revolting are employees of the hyperscalers, other times these are just FOSS fans that hate "source available" licenses or relicensing.
6. Database company is forced to walk back the changes. Still no revenue.
---
The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat.
Basically your license needs one of a few things if you want to prevent Amazon from walking off with your money:
- A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright.
- A MAU / ARR clause such that hyperscalers are in the blast radius. Note that this also hits your customers.
> The solution is clear: start your new database with an "equitable source / source available" license from day one. Nobody will complain about a relicense since your license will handle the hyperscalers right off the bat.
Yes, this would be the honest thing to do, but people don't do it because using a non-FOSS license loses you adoption. The step you're missing in your little timeline is that the only reason the project takes off at all and becomes big enough that anyone is making money off of it is because it's Open Source. Proprietary databases, programming languages, and similar have lost big time and that's not changing any time soon.
So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to release code for free so that other devs will use it and then make money from the project while somehow banning other companies from also making money off it.
This purist mindset is killing the long term viability of open source. If hyperscalers can make money from successful projects but open source founders can't, in 10 years we'll have fewer open source projects.
Licence freedoms don't have to be all or nothing, or apply to everyone in the world. It can be open source and have restrictions. Anything else turns open source into a religion.
Not a religion, but a term with a specific meaning, which meaning implies a collection of freedoms granted without discrimination. People are welcome to use licenses that revoke those freedoms, but calling them FOSS is confusing and muddies the waters.
See Llama's license: if it can be Open Source while having restrictions, then having an Acceptable Use Policy is okay, right? So Redis could create a license that bans its use if you host adult content, Star Wars fan fiction, or documents containing the letter R?
If Open Source doesn't mean a license that indiscriminately grants a set of specific freedoms then it's pretty useless as a term—all I know on hearing it is that a project's source code is available. Which reminds me, we already have a term for that: Source Available.
It’s not about religion. PostgreSQL devs do make money right ? Despite RDS.
Sort-of, we've had a litany of Postgres devshops go bust over the past decade. Some will be for the usual reasons but I wouldn't want to discount the impact of RDS.
However I think Postgres is a bit different. It's a bigger market and more widely used. There's a need for tuning services no matter which platform provides the database servers, so there's a level to make money above cloud hosting.
> So what's really happening is that these FOSS companies want to have their cake and eat it too.
talk about kicking down. So no harsh words about the big dogs who, while contributing nothing, and just due to sheer size and scale advantage, are capturing the lion's share of the enterprise value?
> contributing nothing
This is a line that gets thrown around very casually, but every assessment I've heard says that the big dogs are quite prolific contributors to these projects.
> capturing the lion's share of the enterprise value?
Ah, here's the Matt Mullenweg logic creeping in again [0]! This is basically his taunt towards DHH (though at least you're using it to cry foul rather than tease!): "although he has invented about half a trillion dollars worth of good ideas, most of the value has been captured by others."
And this is where I think most of this aggression towards cloud providers is actually coming from: a significant number of these companies have bought into the idea that they're a failure if they fail to capture the majority of the value from their Open Source project. Which is understandable when you make a VC-funded business out of it, but makes no sense given that FOSS has always been about advancing the collective good, not raking it in.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20241014235025/https://ma.tt/2024...
> big dogs are quite prolific contributors
ok sure, but there's contributing and contributing.
> a significant number of these companies have bought into the idea that they're a failure ...
ok, fair enough. But in that equilibrium you're painting, _only_ companies like AWS will ever be able to monetize open source, especially since software delivery and SAAS are essentially equivalent in 2025, and SAAS is a margin's play which small fry cannot compete with.
VC-funding is also the lever that allows for open source software to find deep and quick penetration in the industry. it's not aws driving it. So when a practitioner benefits from the mature tooling and such a wide userbase of say Redis or ElasticSearch, it is not only because it was cheap (open source), but also because it was lavishly supported (VC).
> I think most of this aggression towards cloud providers is actually coming from ...
I mean, you're certainly right about that, wouldn't call it aggression necessarily.
The software platform is different now than it was 20 years ago. If we want a thriving open source ecosystem, we will need a answer to the fact that big tech can hover up the spoils before the upstarts - that both spearhead the project _and_ fund its expansion - have a chance.
What's missing is why open source won. It's impossible to be rug pulled. If the maintainers (this is a carefully chosen word) attempt a rug-pull you can just Elastic or Redis them. If the product is closed this is impossible and you're at the mercy of whoever you built on. Open Source is the ultimate right to repair. Everything is working as intended.
> Everything is working as intended.
If this true, than we need something else.
Otherwise, expect to see a hell of a lot less new FOSS in the next decade, which will be a pyrrhic victory.
If FOSS can't meet the demands of the time, it needs to be updated or replaced.
Selling software is a deadend. Nobody in their right mind will pay for it because the risks are too great. If you want to build a technology business sell services and support.
The majority of software was always proprietary. GNU was a revolutionary idea. Businesses giving away their product to gain favor is just the natural tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
I don't think the license pick is because of adoption - outside of a few specific cases, the license usually isn't the blocker to getting your tools/projects more widely adopted.
I've written code in the past that I put under GPL that today, I'd probably use a different license for (BSD 3-clause has my preference these days, although I'd just prefer a generic non-commercial license instead). I don't really bother relicensing cuz... it just doesn't matter in the end, these projects are super niche anyway. I picked the GPL since "everyone uses it".
There's always this backlash to demonize anyone daring to move away from the GPL when the simple fact is... maybe some products just don't work in the modern market with the GPL. The hyperscaler thing is a pretty massive issue and the fact that GPL proponents can only give platitudes of "it's working as intended"/"fuck your greed" instead of y'know, accepting that maybe the GPL doesn't work in these environments is... not great.
That isn't a defense of the SSPL or anything like that (it's quite the bad license), but there's a reason that these entities keep writing new licenses instead of going "all rights reserved, we publish source as a courtesy, you can't use it for anything" (even if they effectively close all contributions, they still want to try a permissive license.
Basically the thought that goes into picking the license often isn't nearly as complicated as you may think. It can literally just be "if everyone is doing it, maybe what they're doing is right". Not so much "the GPL gets you more contributors".
I think it might depend on the business. In some places, open source is the "safe pick" (particularly if you aren't selling software and are not worried about things like the GPL). In others, licensing concerns are huge.
Or start with the AGPL from the start instead of a pushover license and sell alternative licenses to hyper scalers if they want it.
You know Amazon has a hosted Grafana service, right? The AGPL isn't a guaranteed obstacle to hyperscalers sucking up most of the value produced by maintainers.
They don't suck it up, since they pay Grafana Labs for it.
> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.
This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42256757
https://www.gomomento.com/blog/rip-redis-how-garantia-data-p...
All companies should do this.. if anything so we know what not to use.
Any sort of proprietary product (be it fully closed source, source-available, or "open source with limitations") is always a risk. You were happily using database X, but they got acquired by Broadcom and now their product costs 100x what it was before. What do you do now?
That's why it is much safer to adopt open source - worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code. Or make an in-house fork if you have enough resources.
"equitable source" license means it's not an option. That new product should really be much, much better than open-source alternatives to even be considered.
> worst case is the company goes under, but you still keep using last released version indefinitely, and hope new entity (maybe even hyperscaler!) forks the code
But it's not always the worst case, is it? If the licence is permissive, an hyperscaler can just take is and make a proprietary product out of it.
Hence copyleft licences without a CLA. Nobody could make Linux proprietary because the copyright is shared between so many people/companies.
Who exactly is suffering in this case?
The original company went under, they no longer exist, so they obviously don't care.
The software user does not care either. OK, someone made a proprietary fork, and that "someone" is a hyperscaler... so what? The last released version is still out there and still can be used-as is / maintained by you / maintained by other 3rd party.
The new maintainers / fork authors should not care too. They base off the last released version, and their fork is not affected in any shape by what some hyperscalers do.
(I guess you can make an argument that proprietary fork might pull users/resources from the open-source one... but I don't think it's a big issue. If the users chose open-source version to begin with, why would they switch to proprietary fork?)
They're talking about worst for the customer. You're talking about worst for the supplier.
I don't understand what you are saying. What has a "supplier" to do in this?
Copyleft is always the best for the customer. Copyleft says "the customer has rights". Permissive says "do whatever you want, as long as you keep my name somewhere in the attributions".
A product - in this case, software - is supplied from a supplier, or vendor, to their customer. Is this business 101?
The usual worst case for the supplier is that they give the product but don't get paid, and the usual worst case for the customer is that they give the money but don't get the product.
With copyleft specifically, the supplier is much more likely to not get paid, but the customer receives the benefit of being allowed to continue the maintenance of the software themselves if the supplier goes out of business. The supplier hopes this will help them acquire and keep customers, many of whom will pay, and keep them in business.
> Is this business 101?
I understand what a supplier is. I don't understand how it relates to what I said.
> With copyleft specifically, the supplier is much more likely to not get paid
That doesn't make any sense. Whether the supplier open sources their code as permissive or copyleft doesn't have any impact on the likelihood of getting paid.
But if they distribute it as permissive, a competitor can just make a proprietary fork. Possibly continuously importing the new improvements from upstream and focusing on differentiating. Whereas if they distribute it as copyleft, a competitor has to share their changes, that upstream can benefit from.
So for the supplier, if that's how you want to call it, it's better to licence code as copyleft. Except if the whole idea is to be adopted by corporations, but in that case don't whine when they take your code and build a proprietary product without contributing anything back.
> The company decides to change the license to force Amazon / Google / Microsoft to pitch in and pay a fee.
Could you put a clause in the license that calls out those specific companies that you're concerned about and makes them pay, as well as any of their subsidiaries, a list that can be changed later?
That way, smaller businesses around the software can still exist, nobody gets concerned with the license too much because it calls out specific hyperscalers (no love lost on them in the community) and you still get them to pay their fair share.
Why do people try to ruin everything by SSPL that's overly restrictive and catches everyone else in the blast area, or try to write some clever license that would apply in all cases? Just call out the exact companies that are eating your lunch!
Hyperscaler Anti-Freeloading License (HAFL): If you belong to any of the following companies, or are a subsidiary of them, or operate any of the given cloud platforms and want to offer the service there, pay up: Amazon Web Services (Amazon), Google Cloud Platform (Google), Microsoft Azure (Microsoft), Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group), IBM Cloud (IBM), Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (Oracle), Tencent Cloud (Tencent), SAP Cloud Platform (SAP). This list can be changed at our discretion.> a list that can be changed later?
No legal department will ever approve using software under a license like that. Who wants to risk being the next addition to that list?
You could, but it still wouldn't be open source.
This breakdown hits hard because it’s not just about business models — it’s about trust.
Open source succeeded because it created shared public infrastructure. But hyperscalers turned it into extraction infrastructure: mine the code, skip the stewardship.
The result? We’ve confused “open” with “free-for-the-powerful.”
It’s time to stop pretending licenses are enough. This is about incentives, governance, and resilience. The next generation of “open” has to bake in counterpower — or it’s just a feeding trough for monopolies.
Before moving from permissive licences to non-open-source licences (because they have exceptions for TooBigTech), an easy step would be to use copyleft licences, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. Amazon sells a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL.
That's wrong: they pay Grafana Labs to use it as proprietary, as noted in another comment:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710
> Grafana's a great example of this. AWS and Azure _could_ have sold the unmodified AGPL Grafana as a service or published their modified versions, but instead, they both struck proprietary licensing and co-marketing agreements with Grafana Labs.
Testing my LLM-detection abilities. Did you write this yourself? Or is this LLM produced?
The phrasings stick out to me as super GPT-like.
> A hyperscaler clause such that any managed offering has to (1) be fully open source, (2) has to pay a fee, or (3) is prevented outright.
A copyleft licence (not necessarily GPL, there is also MPL and EUPL) from the beginning on would result in (1), no need for a new license.
But people "don't want strings attached" and are happier with permissive licences, and then they complain.
"walking off with your money"
This is the heart of all of these stupid takes. There is no "your money" for anyone else to walk off with. Nothing was stolen.
If you want to sell software, or rent access to software, then just do that honestly forom the outset. And good luck to you on that. I will not consume it unless I have no other choice, and I will not contribute to it at all period, even tertially by for instance developing things that use it or help people work out how to solve problems with it etc. In other words just generally not invest in it, in all the different ways one might invest in something. But hey maybe you will make something indispensible and do it better than anyone else can, and maybe you will get a bunch of other customers.
If you want to benefit from the adoption and goodwill and army of free work that comes with open source, then do that.
The honest reason to work on open source is because you yourself have recognized how much utility you have been given fo free because of it, and wish to pay it forward and basically add to humanity as a whole. What you get back out of it is the same thing everyone else does, the use of the software itself, plus your name being on it.
But if you license something open source, and then care the TINIEST BIT what someone else does with it beyond adhering to the attribution and share-alike terms, then you have missed the point of open source. You are bent about being "robbed" of something that was never yours in the first place. You have no right to Amazon's billions, even the part of it that they made by hosting a copy of some oss software you happened to have written. Amazon is not selling your property, they are selling a managed hosting service. You have no right to the revenue from that. The software being hosted is a community resource there for everyone to use like the air or water, only even better since unlike Nestle taking the water from everyone else, everyone else still has the software.
If anything the supposed injured party in all of these cases are the bad community members because they are often only OSS disingenuously in the first place. They start off with MIT/BSD style licenses because they know a lot of companies are allergic to GPL. But WHY are they so intolerant of GPL? Because GPL doesn't allow them to steal, but MIT allows them to steal. So they start with an MIT-type license because it's "commercial friendly" and then later cry that someone "stole" their B S freaking D licensed software.
People that do that were never writing open source for the purpose of adding to the community pool in the first place. It's either dishonest or at best, possibly honest but in that case just unbelievably incompetent and ignorant.
You’re living in theoretical fantasy land.
Yeah, it’d be great if everything was open source and everyone was happy.
But that’s not really what happens. Redis and Elastic are popular exactly because there’s entire companies behind it constantly maintaining it, securing it, and adding features.
If you want use open source software at your job that’s a hard requirement. No, you can’t use “MySillyKeyValueCache” that Timmy develops in his free time with no security or compatibility concerns.
Companies cost money to run. Google and AWS exploit open source work for profit, and don’t contribute back enough to ensure its support. This is what you should be really mad about. The internet giants are literally killing open source.
If they have their way you’ll be stuck with their proprietary software. In practice AWS is already there.
> Companies cost money to run. Google and AWS exploit open source work for profit, and don’t contribute back enough to ensure its support.
I don’t understand this take, if Google/AWS/Microsoft decide to host your service and some vulnerabilities are discovered then you got free Security Research done, your product would either have remained vulnerable or someone else would have filed the same bug.
You own the code so you can decide only certain people can commit PRs and can choose to close any feature requests issues.
If one of the cloud providers decided to use your product it’s because they deemed it reasonable as is or they can fork / contribute upstream.
That is what OSS is, by definition.
Hell you can post the code with a license like MIT and then never touch it again, and if someone else can monitise that code kudos to them.
If you are an existing company and open sourced your code, Facebook/react, then you presumably already make enough money to support development yourself or intend to stop development.
If you open source code that is your core business and somebody “steals your lunch” your learnt an important lesson and hopefully won’t make the same mistake twice. If you then decide to relicense and the community abandons you and causes uproar on the internet you are reaping the rewards of your actions, accept them.
Look, in principle I don’t disagree with anything you said.
However, I think OSS is a net positive to the industry, and would like to see it remain that way.
The classic way to monetize OSS has been to provide hosting and support for a price.
Now the internet giants are taking that entire pie for themselves.
If we agree that we want OSS to be a viable option going forward, and we agree that you need money to hire devs to maintain a successful large scale OSS project, then what do you suggest be done?
> and we agree that you need money to hire devs to maintain a successful large scale OSS project
Therein lies our disagreement, you don’t need to. If you are amazon and upstream is willing to accept requests then amazon can hire devs, and if someone eats their cake then those devs will eventually migrate to the new location.
As someone who did the initial work for OSS I put the code out there, if I dislike the direction a fork is taking I can ignore said fork and keep working on my own version, why do I need to use the version they are using.
It boils down to why did you even start an OSS project, if the intention was to make money or hire other employees you fundamentally misunderstood the assignment.
If you made a project that serves your own need, decide someone else may benefit so you publish it as FOSS online and it gets massive traction how does that change your need, you probably have no reason to make it commercially viable, it is still serving the same need it always has for you.
Now if it gets forked and the fork proves to be of better quality and still serves your need then switch to the fork for your own personal need and now someone else is doing the maintenance, so you end up being the “freeloader”.
And I’ve already discussed the “burden on the maintainer”, if it’s such an issue close access to issues and pull requests. No more burden.
Then sell software. I said that first thing. Where is the fantasy in that?
If you don't understand it such that you think it's a fantasy (despite the ocean of existing software as proof that is produced, and countless published manifestos from people who do it describing why they do), well that's a you problem not a me or anyone else problem.
You don't get it, that's fine, then simply don't get it, and don't participate in this activity you think is insane.
You are free to have any opinion you want about what constitutes a rational use of your time and effort.
But don't pretend you understand something that the participants do not understand. We're all eating non-fantasy food just fine, somehow.
If they try to sell their software, by your own admission, you won't consume it. That's the point. The fantasy is the idea that some of these open-source products would even work as a closed-source proprietary business model.
Then don't try to sell it. Or make something else that people can't live without and are willing to pay for and can't just pay themselves to write an equivalent instead of paying rent to you forever, whatever, what's it to me or anyone else?
Do whatever you want but it's no one else's problem if you can't figure out what.
Ya got no argument here.
I disagree with you on a lot, but you're bang on the money here.
If you want a business, build a business. One key aspect of building a business is understanding what your IP and trade secrets are, how they affect your bottom line, and then controlling them appropriately.
The point is that if there was no business behind projects like Redis and ElasticSearch you wouldn’t be using them either. You’d be using some random Microsoft or Oracle product.
I’m guessing you don’t want that either, so come up with a way to make sure Redis has the financial support it needs to hire engineers to do the full time work that part time contributors like us don’t want to.
The point is I don't have to come up with any such thing.
It is not true that if redis didn't exist then I'd be using some MS or Oracle product. I might, if it was practical. Or someone might have invented redis, or I might if that was a space that still needed filling and somehow no one else did it.
It's like saying if linux didn't exist we'd all be using NT.
That's completely ridiculous. No we would not. BSD already existed and if not that then a minix clone or someone else would have started some other unix clone. There were several small unix clones and other full OS's made by completely small developer teams by then, even single people, commercially. If a single guy can do it at all (regardles that they were doing it to sell), it means the job is not infinitely big and so perfectly doable by a few self-motivated volunteers, especially given how that kind of work has no deadline.
Except "volunteer" is the wrong word because they aren't some kind of weird saint doing something just for you or me. They are doing it for themselves, and you get to have it too.
Everything is like that. Redis is no different. There is nothing magic about redis. Things exactly like that get created when the need for them arises every day. If redis didn't exist is a nonsense invalid premis because 12 redis-alikes will always exist any time the need for it exists. It doesn't matter that I didn't already do it muyself, and I don't have to now either, and that is not just beacause redis happens to exist.
> Google and AWS exploit open source work for profit, and don’t contribute back enough to ensure its support. This is what you should be really mad about. The internet giants are literally killing open source.
They would have to publish their changes if those projects used copyleft licences. Copyleft licences don't force to "contribute back", but they force disclosing the changes, that the community can then benefit from.
I like copyleft licenses!
But they don’t solve the problem of cloud providers pulling the rug out from under companies based on open source companies.
There is no problem to solve because there is no rug to pull out. Redis are not owed anything and no one stole anything from them.
When I try to make a business hosting copies of an http server, I am not pulling the rug out from under nginx who actually wrote the http server.
And when AWS does that better and than me, they are not pulling any rug out from under me, or at least not in any way that is special to any of the software involved, just plain old bigger businesses vs little businesses, no different than say Safelite vs Joe the Glass Guy.
Not sure I understand your message. If you have a copyleft licence without a CLA, then the copyright is distributed between all the contributors, which makes it almost impossible to change the licence. And because it is copyleft, it means that the sources need to be distributed to the users.
So TooBigTech can build a service upon a copyleft project, but they have to distribute their changes, which means that the community can benefit from them. One example I learned about here is Grafana: AWS did not want to use their AGPL version so apparently they pay Grafana to get a commercial licence. That's of course possible only because Grafana own the copyright of the whole codebase. It wouldn't be possible with Linux, for instance, where nobody has the power to give a commercial licence and therefore it is GPLv2 for everybody.
It doesn't prevent TooBigTech from competing by serving the open source project, but that is more of an antitrust issue, I think.
Gotcha, I see what you’re saying.
I didn’t know about Grafana. That sounds awesome.
Maybe you’re right about this being an antitrust issue though.
the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers
which is sort of funny because the term "Open Source" was itself coined to make it possible for people to seek funding to build companies based on the (crazy?) idea of producing software, then giving away its source code
20 years later, the structure of the industry has now changed, and now "Open Source" exists to feed Amazon, Microsoft and Google
if it's not possible to alter the definition to include licenses that include terms that allow sustainable value creation for businesses other than the hyperscalers, then the term is no longer fit for purpose, and we need a new one
"Fair Software"?
It's really not though. The OSI quickly loses credibility when they try to push a definition that the community doesn't like (see the Open Source AI kerfuffle).
Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS. When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men.
the OSI and the FSF agree, for different reasons
> Both the OSI and the FSF are agreed that Source Available with bans on specific use cases is not FOSS.
well... yes, because they decide the definition of the terms
> When you've got freaking Richard Stallman opposing you you really have to do better than just scream "corporate capture". Engage with his idea of Freedom, don't set up straw men.
Stallman has a very particular view of Freedom (itself a multifaceted term)
and he rather famously completely rejects the term "Open Source"
the situation we're finding ourselves in is one where three increasingly malevolent entities control and capture 100% of the value generated by writing and selling software with source code
if you're an employee of these entities, great for you
for the rest of us, this is a bad situation to be in
and certainly not one that could produce another Red Hat
The AGPLv3 or later is both free and open source and should be the de facto license of choice in my opinion for mass adoption.
I agree that the OSI and FSF are trapped with their most hardcore followers, and can't effectively change, assuming they even wanted to.
As for Stallman... his idea of freedom is very narrowly-scoped. In particular, it makes no distinction between hobbyists and megacorps, and is completely blind with respect to economics.
By lumping hobbyists with companies, it makes the category error of extending human rights to corporations. This of course, is nothing new in America, and hasn't been since the infamous 1886 Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad court case, that established corporate "personhood".
Corporations are collections of humans. There are certain ways in which extending human rights to corporations a mistake, but allowing them to use free software isn't one of them: either the individuals in the company are able to use the software or they are not, and if they are not then the software is not free.
Take a look at Debian’s philosophy: https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
This predates the OSI definition. The philosophy is about what empowers the user. Business models (or their challenges) have nothing to do with it.
It just so happens that empowering the user also empowers competitors.
> It just so happens that empowering the user also empowers competitors.
IMHO copyleft licences are better for the user and permissive licences are better for competitors. Still people keep going with permissive licences.
Ehhh, Amazon offers a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL. I'm not so sure that.
Which means that they have to share their changes to Grafana, doesn't it?
The LWN thread says that they don't, but have separate proprietary licensing and co-marketing agreements with Grafana Labs.
Thanks that interesting!
And in this case it means that it's not AGPL, but proprietary. Which kind of proves my point: they are apparently paying Grafana Labs to avoid the constraints of AGPL. If Grafana was permissive, they would surely not pay.
The OSD is basically a copy of the DFSG btw
You wouldn’t use the ten commandments as your only moral guide.
The landscape has changed. Google, Amazon, and microsoft are actively trying to destroy open source business models. Don’t let the leopards eat your face because you were too attached to your ideology.
> Don’t let the leopards eat your face because you were too attached to your ideology.
You're conflating ideologies. User-focused ideology doesn't care about business models. Leopards aren't eating their faces. They're perfectly fine where they are.
Business model focused ideology might care, but the AGPL exists and meets Debian's requirements. Those who care can choose to use it, or not, as they wish.
> the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers
Thank you for pointing that out.
This is something I have noticed in the last decade:
A lot of fake, captured organisations have popup around open source. I once went down the rabbit hole to try to make a list and quickly found dozen of them. It is always very hard to understand what they do and employ a bunch of people who usually never wrote a single line of code.
One example found on the Fedora website is the "Digital Public Goods Alliance" [0]
> the problem is the definition of Open Source is controlled by the Open Source Initiative, which has been captured by the hyperscalers
I'm not sure this is true. The OSI's definition of open source doesn't seem to have changed since ~2001 [1] - before AWS was founded - and it'd been around in various forms since ~1997.
This was the era of Microsoft's 2001-era "Shared Source license" which was deliberately GPL-incompatible; Bruce Perens, author of the definition, wrote "Microsoft's Shared Source program recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness, community involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But the most important component of that model, the one that makes all of the others work, is freedom." [2] (Perens also judged the first version of the "Apple Public Source License" insufficiently free [3])
They've kinda always been about not just being able to view the source, but also modify it, and redistribute the modified version, merge it into other software projects, make commercial use of it, etc etc
It just so happens that this stance, adopted well before AWS existed, works extremely well for AWS.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20020126171934/http://opensource... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20010813210224/http://perens.com... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20010430042835/http://www.perens...
I'd argue it doesn't "just so happen" to benefit AWS, it was causal: Open Source created AWS. AWS is structured the way that it is in order to benefit from Open Source, and it grew to its current size by so benefiting.
In a lot of ways things like AWS are what the OSI set out to create when they set out to sell Free Software as an idea to corporations. This was the pitch.
> "Fair Software"?
That's the term most frequently used! I've seen a number of different efforts start to coalesce around this.
This was also a really nice license:
We need licenses like these to combat Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. "Open Source" is their grift now.
This seems to be accelerating. I guess the era of lighting investment money on fire and pretending that the flames equal success is coming to an end.
Unless of course you are an AI startup.
> Neither company has built in a legal safety mechanism to prevent themselves from pulling the rug again later
Previous versions are still available under the original license, right? So if you don't want to use it with a new license, you're in the same situation as if company went out of business or stopped support and development for any other reason. There are no safety mechanisms for that either.
An existing safety mechanism is to do exactly what Linux does: have a copyleft licence and no CLA. So that the copyright is shared between the contributors (so it's impossible to change the licence) and the licence enforces sharing your changes of the project.
The legal safety mechanism is the license. They gave you software under a certain license and you're in the clear as long as you follow it. You don't have to delete it if they give different software under a different license.
If you do need constant updates, you may trust forks more not to switch license, but forks tend to disappear at about the same rate that originals switch license, so why does it matter? Such is the nature of relying on free stuff - you're at the mercy of the one who hands it out.
I contributed heavily to a project during its early days and spent almost 2.5 years helping it grow. For awhile i was one of the most active contributors.
Then there was talk of turning the project into an actual business, and myself and a few of the original contributers were offered extremely poor paying jobs. That no one took. Then they got a CEO, investors and we were basically forced out of the project unless we joined the company.
I distinctly remember being in a call where we were told they would be relicensing it eventually and launching a SaaS. To protect our work from being used by large companies. I laughed and pointed out the irony in that call that you were doing the same thing.
After that they changed their policy such they do not accept outside PR's. It has killed any interest in supporting open source projects outside personal stuff.
Did you sign a Contributor License Agreement? If not, then I'm pretty sure it's illegal to keep your changes while relicensing, without obtaining your consent.
If you're the most active contributor, you could've just forked it yourself, launched it as a SaaS, and been the CEO.
Not everyone wants to be a CEO. Some people just wanna write some good code and contribute to the world.
I just wanted to make a tool to help developers. Then when the SaaS launched they instead focused on adding $$$ features instead of fixing bugs, and started heavily pushing their SaaS anytime you used the tool.
They ended up switching to a terrible model with a previous release where if you were a business or in anyway making money you now needed to pay for licenses and it was comically expensive.
The reality is I could have forked it but I don't have the time and patience to deal with everything that comes from a massive project.
Come on, at least give us a hint what it is!
Yes because "pics or it didn't happen"
Anyway: thanks for having contributed to Redis :)
Good decision, I hope the best for Redis!
Not quite. Company can easily change license at any time. No string attached.
I believe AGPL + time + contributors makes that very difficult. It also means that if you have a commercial product that uses Redis you need to open source your stuff though, so not net better imu. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Nope, looks like they still require a CLA for code contributions, which means they can release it under whatever license they want.
https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md
Hmmm. Yes, agree.
It all depends on if they have a CLA or not. Have CLA == continued easy rug pull, No CLA == rug pull gets harder over time.
No, it doesn’t mean you need to open source your commercial product if it uses Redis. AGPLV3 doesn’t work like that. You need to open source your changes to Redis if you make any, and if your product is distributed through a network.
> You need to open source your changes to Redis
I am pretty sure that AGPL makes you distribute your changes to your users, not to Redis.
Classic operator precedence confusion. The phrase is well written, though:
You need (to open source) (your changes to Redis)
I.e. "you need to open source [your changes (that you have made) to the Redis codebase]"
Oh, got it now. Thanks!
Likewise. Respect for antirez and all of that he is doing, but his hiring back feels like just trying to lure developers back after ridiculous move by the Redis corporation.
Given there are viable alternatives out there, I see no reason why someone should invest any time in Redis (we are using Valkey as a replacement).
Nothing wrong in checking other alternatives, but Redis the company didn't call me to rejoin. I approached them to do something like an evangelist and bring back some kind of community vision inside. Then... if you can code, you end coding often times, and instead of doing the evangelist I wrote the Vector Set data type :D Just to clarify that me rejoining was not some kind of "winning back the community plan". I wrote at large about all that, even clearly stating that even the paycheck is modest (to avoid that kind of conflict of interest of the economical motivation).
I use Redis in basically every project, and this "ridiculous" move had literally zero impact on my usage of Redis, so maybe that is a bit hyperbolic.
SSPL is not as bad as the OSS community pretends it is (unless you're a hyperscaler).
I agree. That ship has sailed, at least for the foreseeable future. We switched to Valkey and it's our choice for a couple upcoming projects as well. To switch back now after this whole ordeal would make no sense at all.
Microsoft made one called Garnet, I wouldn't say its a fork though, its basically compatible with Redis and implemented mostly in C#. It supports the RESP wire protocol from Redis for ease of compatibility.
Garnet fascinates me. Their benchmarks even claim that it is better than Redis and also Dragonfly. Are there any papers or write ups explaining what makes Garnet fast? (I do know its based on FASTER)
The tl;dr is it's just a lockless hashmap attached to a TCP server with a log. Simple Get/Set operations are highly optimized, so with high batching they are able to efficiently fetch a lot of data efficiently. The architectures scales very well when you add threads and data access that is uniform.
It struggles a bit on certain types of workloads like hot keys, think heavy hitting a single sorted set. It's a cool architecture.
That's... Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a KV store. It's a hashmap on the network.
The difference is that Redis is single-threaded, the value proposition of Redis was/is a fast (in-memory) simple (single-threaded) server to serve things so much faster than a traditional DB. It was a perfect fit and became popular with the Ruby/Rails community,etc since those environments combined with traditional SQL servers are slogs compared to what a fast server like Redis could do.
As good as Redis is, modern computers with multiple cores potentially leaves a lot of performance on the table. Garnet seems to be a well designed multithread KV-store (though sadly the benchmark page doesn't list benchmark for more complex objects even if the simple cases looks good).
There's more to it than just having a fast hashmap: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
(I'd imagine implementing mechanisms for resilient storage and larger than memory data sizes would be the hard parts)
Nice. I've been using Memurai (https://www.memurai.com/) for development on Windows (native, no WSL or Docker - for reasons), but this looks much better.
EDIT: Weird that being a program from Microsoft (well, it's Microsoft Research, so that probably explains it?) it has no installer and doesn't run as a service on its own.
The readytorun zip includes a service exe, it does need 'sc create binpath= ' etc. to be ran as a service.
Conventional wisdom from 10 years ago on HN is that Microsoft Research just pays some top researchers (with commercially interesting, err, interests) to keep doing their thing. I wouldn't distrust anyone from there based on their employer. That is from someone who doesn't trust MSFT very far.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't distrust them, it's just that some projects that come out of Microsoft Research are more rough around the edges!
Wow. First time hearing about Garnet. MS should package and deploy it as a service in the Azure SAAS offerings.
Yup, it’s a complete reimplementation in pure C#. It’s built on top of FASTER KV / Tsavorite project from MSR.
You do see how that's even worse, right?
Microsoft has a habit of "fake" open source. Particularly on Github.
By "fake", I mean Microsoft largely treats their Open Source codebases like they are closed-source, in-house proprietary codebases that they happen to let members of the public look at.
They'll accept a PR once in a while, but mostly it appears Issues and PR's are used as a free alternative to UserVoice.
Every decision is made behind closed doors (probably a MS Teams call actually), and you'll notice how top-heavy their staff is on these projects (half a dozen employees with "Manager" in their title on any given repo).
Beggars can't be choosers, and I'm glad they are dipping their toes into the FOSS water... but I don't really get FOSS vibes from their projects on Github.
Open source does not mean you accept contributions from others. It means that the source code is available, and that people are free to take it and modify it themselves. You are using a definition which is... not exactly incorrect, because definitions are what they are, but certainly not what everyone else uses.
You’re confusing open source and open to contribution. Is SQLite not open-source?
Does SQLite try to embrace, extend, and extinguish their competitors?
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is from an era where Open Source wasn't the default for infrastructure.
I don't know how you can extinguish something that's MIT licensed and has a million copies around the world.
I've read at least several stories from this era like AppGet's https://medium.com/@keivan/the-day-appget-died-e9a5c96c8b22
I wouldn't trust Microsoft near my open source code base in 3 centuries
They can extinguish it by just stealing all the code, and using their bigger marketplace advantage to become the defacto standard.
I'm fairly impressed Microsoft managed not to name their Redis competitor "Cache", just to pollute the keyspace like they do with so many of their other products.
LMAO they're so evil its even mildly funny
Comment was deleted :(
I guess it will depend on your definition of "extinguish" and a few other things but:
gestures wildly at the MIT-licenced VSCode codebase
Yes, they are not rug pulling the VSCode source but by locking down the marketplace (and never giving a truly open source VSCode, what developers think of as "VSCode") they are in the processes of locking out forks.
Ah so this is like how Android being open source was (almost) always bullshit. You had to play all kinds of google dances to get the google apps on them.
Fair point! good example of an attempt to extinguish.
I couldn't agree more with the Android comparison, I made the same comparison to VSCode a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43787009
Does Microsoft do this in 2025?
Like seriously - I haven't heard of them doing it in quite a long time. I know they were atrocious in the 90s and 00s, I'm not disputing that at all. Are there any examples of them continuing this behavior in the last decade though?
Further, a huge percentage of the people making those decisions back then are no longer with the company, different people are in charge, etc. The industry has changed it's relationship with open source - company board rooms aren't scared of the consequences of loading open source onto a server, the legality and liabilities have been hashed out, and MS isn't really even capable of pulling those fear levers anymore. MS itself has repositioned in the industry - their dreams of total computing dominance have been shattered: there's no chance of a windows derivative owning the server market any more, there's no money in browsers or consumer OSes (heck even MS's domination in gaming is showing cracks due the the efforts of valve). Point being - would it even make strategic sense for them to try to EEE anything anymore?
Note: I have almost no ties to MS. I haven't used an MS os or desktop software since before covid (in any capacity, even moving the mouse on a computer running windows). I don't use any of their SaaS products personally or professionally. There are integrations between the products I help build and azure, however those are not a major source of revenue for my employer and I do very little work that even touches that stuff. Point being - I'm pretty non-MS in my life and don't have any sort of loyalty or incentive to defend them. I do abhor their EEE actions back in the 90s and 00s when they were doing them, and those still make me angry... but that's not a reason to assume that different people at a company are going to act the same as the old-school ones.
Just read this a few days ago, so maybe the behaviour is better than it was, but still. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750535
Perhaps... when I look at an Open Source codebase, I expect there to not just be source you can read, but also a way to contribute and engage with the codebase creators, beyond just bug reporting (aka. Github Issues).
While it may technically be open source due to it's license and you can literally go look at the source - Microsoft is operating these codebases as-if they are proprietary. Every decision is made out of public - and I would not be surprised to learn they have their own internal tracker for the "real" backlog items. You frequently see command/comments by Microsoft employees which clearly are triggering workflows in their real backlog tracker, and near-zero discussion happens in Github by Microsoft employees, and when it does - it's clearly through a PR filter.
Like I said, beggars can't be choosers and it's better to have this than nothing - but I don't really think Microsoft has grasped the true concept of FOSS as-of yet.
> Is SQLite not open-source?
Not really in my opinion either. There's no way to contribute at all... best you can do it raise hell on the forums about a particular issue you want to see fixed. So while it's Open Source in the strict sense, it's not Open Source in the general sense.
Whether a project is developed by a community or by a single entity holding all keys is completely orthogonal to being Open Source/Free Software. There's nothing wrong in putting one kind of projects above the other, but you may want to revise "your opinion" if you want to stay communicative, because terms and definitions are only useful when people agree on what they mean.
The terminology for this is the cathedral model and the bazaar model. Under the former model, code is released from 'on high'. Under the latter, it's developed in the open and with cooperation with the community. Both count as Free and Open Source software though, provided of course that a FOSS licence is used.
I think most projects are genuinely like this though, even ones that accept outside contributions more earnestly. I understand why you'd associate open to contributions with open source but I think its a mistake to treat the relationship as required rather than common.
The sibling comments contain some sharper critique of Microsoft if you haven't read them yet.
> best you can do it raise hell on the forums about a particular issue you want to see fixed
Also, do you have any open source projects that you wrote, maintain, and accept contributions?
I make an open source, MIT licensed piece of software. I don't accept unsolicited contributions, but I document that people are free to fork the code and provide instructions on how to develop, test and build on your machine.
Am I "fake open source"?
In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted.
In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source.
That's not to say you are required to accept all contributions - I'm saying you should be open to contributions that A) save you time B) enhance the codebase or C) fix confirmed bugs.
In Microsoft's case - I don't see a lot of that going on. I see lots of Issues (bug reports), some PR's, but mostly opaque decision making, and complete silence on things the Corporate side of Microsoft doesn't want to comment on yet. Which is the beef - it's a corporate project run like it's proprietary but you can go look at the code. Again, better than nothing, but it's not really what I consider true open source.
> In my opinion, the spirit of open source goes beyond just tossing code over a wall for people to look at. In my opinion, it means accepting engagement from your users, their inputs and their contributions when/where warranted.
I disagree. There's nothing about open source or the various open source licenses that require accepting engagement from the community and/or contributions.
Open source means allowing modifications, and sharing those modifications. It's in most licenses that the software is provided as is and without warranty.
> In my opinion, for something to be truly open source, I should be able to fix a bug I ran into, or implement a feature from the backlog and contribute it back upstream. If upstream is just going to ignore my contribution, pretend it doesn't exist, or reject it just because - then that codebase is just pretending to be open source.
A project not accepting outside contributions is still open source, not pretending to be, and the beauty of it is - if you want it to accept outside contributions, you are able to fork it and accept contributions on your own fork, or otherwise share your modifications. But there's absolutely no obligation of the original dev/owner to accept or engage with anything from the community. It's in the license, the software is provided as is and without warranty of any kind.
Maybe it's worthwhile to coin a new term, community software, to specifically make a distinction between projects that are community developed (accept contributions) vs those that don't.
Wow, that's stretching it a bit, isn't it?
I'd say the spirit of open source is that others are free to modify the code and that's it. This requires a good license, the possibility to fork, some documentation and a way to build the project yourself.
But why would accepting contributions be required?
A lot of people are very entitled. They think that an open-source project gives the right to make request/demand of the project. Even if they are willing to write the contribution themselves, they still think they have the right to have their pull request accepted. They forget that 1) it may be outside the scope of the project, and 2) the project owners are going to be the ones that have to actually maintain the code they commit. Crazy stuff.
I am 100% in agreement with your sentiment.
This blog post is legendary (in my mind): "Open Source Maintainers Owe You Nothing" -> https://mikemcquaid.com/open-source-maintainers-owe-you-noth...
It perfectly sums up how this conversation is going.
What if you want implement a feature, but they don't have time to look at it and make sure it's secure, or support future bugs? Look at the xz (IIRC) hack - not everyone has tons of free time.
How long after they release their code are the required to keep this up? Do they need to respond to your requests within 5 business days?
If they retire / move on to another project, does the source code stop being open source?
I have the same feeling. I got used to infrastructure being run as a democracy, not merely “source available under GPL/BSD/MIT”. (It’s a big thing to want, sure, but I don’t mind wanting big things.)
IMO, no. The open source definition says nothing about requiring outside contributions, and IMO the spirit of it in the beginning was never about that.
It was about being able to have access to, fork/modify, and redistribute the software. That's the important thing - that the software I use can be modified by me, and if I wish to do so, the license allows me to then redistribute those changes vs. proprietary software, which cannot be modified nor redistributed.
I'm not sure why the zeitgeist went from the above and turned into "all open source must be community software and engage with users and accept contributions" because that was never what it was about. It was a benefit of some projects, sure, but at the end of the day the important thing isn't whether or not the project accepts contributions but whether I have the power and license to modify something to my liking, fork it if I wash, and/or redistribute my changes.
No, but you've deliberately chosen to not make it free software.
How is that "fake"? There's no requirement that an open source project take contributions from outsiders at all.
This notion that open source projects aren't really open source unless they welcome all contributions is one of the dumber ideas in the world.
Having worked a few places that have major open source projects, it was eye opening to see how pervasive this seems to have become. It feels like over my lifetime I've watched the value/expectations/demands/definition of OSS shift from "source is available, and I can make changes to my own copy/fork of of it if required" to "source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me"
> source is available, and I will demand you make changes to it for me
There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source.
If I use your program for free, and encounter a bug, I should be able to fix it and contribute that back upstream so everyone benefits. That's my way of "paying back" and helping the community. Projects that reject contributions, or make contributing difficult are not in the spirit of open source, even if they are technically open source via their license.
That's what I call "fake" open source - you want the positive image of being Open Source only.
You are free to fork their code, add your fix, open a bug-tracking system, start a forum, guarantee response times, etc to "help the community".
Not everyone has time for a second or third full-time job.
> There seems to be a disconnect here. I agree, demanding someone else make changes for you is in poor taste. The issue is, some of these projects advertise themselves as being open source while having no meaningful way to contribute changes back upstream - ie. the spirit of open source.
I mean, you're not demanding someone else make the changes. You're only demanding that they engage and build a community around their project and all that entails.
As long as the license is reasonable, anybody else could pick up the project and do the community building around it. Apache HTTP Server developed around community patches to NCSA httpd. I don't think hitch (from the people who brought you Varnish) is well know, but it started as stud with community patches. If something like this takes off, the originator will either start taking the community patches too, or not; it's their choice.
In the meantime, as a user, I get the benefit of whatever changes the origin provides and I can patch it as I want, and fix up problems that I see. That works for code dump open source and community open source,.
heh, related: https://x.com/mitchellh/status/1918055154991202470
Garnet has a discord server and has been actively accepting community PRs, so I don’t know what kind of nonsense you are on about.
What is it with .NET that compels you to lie?
Also FOSS and open contribution are different things, as sibling comment notes.
Comment was deleted :(
MIT license is not FOSS, it's OSS at best.
MIT is one of the least restrictive licenses.
If you think otherwise, I suggest checking if there's any aluminium foil on your head.
Free software is licensed in a way that protects your freedom. MIT license does not.
Are you actually unaware of this? If so, why? Is it age or have you been sheltered somehow?
Free software is software that you are free to use or modify however you want.
That's too vague. Free software is software you can't take and then modify and keep your modifications hidden or proprietary, thus depriving your users and the community of access to these changes.
MIT license allows this, hence it's not a free software license. Because very large corporations don't like freedom they've poisoned the discourse around software freedom and launched PR campaigns trying to substitute talk about freedom with talk about openness or open source. To some extent they've succeeded, as evidenced by the chatter about it in this thread.
As a end user, I find it quite restrictive. There might be some software I won't be able to fork/modify because they were MIT. I'm not the owner of the software anymore.
The MIT license always allows you to fork/modify the project. You wouldn't be the copyright owner of the existing code in your fork, but you could be the owner of the project, and the copyright owner of any new code you add.
"The MIT License (MIT) Copyright © 2025 <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons..."
What stops them from doing the exact same thing
I don't, would you like to explain?
It's controlled by an even larger and much, much nastier corporation.
Comment was deleted :(
I get the feeling. I also live in the real world and know that nobody except for a few (most notably RedHat) have figured out how to make sustainable money in open source. These closed licenses didn’t come out of nowhere. They came in response to places like AWS using the open source license to make a mint with a project — and doing so legally (it’s there in the license to do so) — but then the project suffers. So the license change is done to prevent that so the project — ostensibly — can survive. It makes sense. And so does wanting to live up to the promises of open source. It’s a tough situation for sure.
Comment was deleted :(
If you contributed before the license change/fork, you've also contributed to valkey and redict ;)
The only real reason to use non-copyleft licenses for these kinds of projects is to be able to do the rug pull, so you should have expected it instead of feeling betrayed.
I imagine they will now require copyright assignment or something like that for external contributors to be able to relicense new code under a commercial license.
A copyleft license like the AGPL didn't stop MongoDB from rugpulling. I'd argue that the AGPL, and the copyright assignment that tends to go with it, makes it easier to rugpull because forking entities would be at an extreme disadvantage in keeping the lights on compared to the closed-sourcing company. A non-copyleft license, on the other hand, makes it much easier for a forking company to cover all the same niches as the original company, making a rugpull that much more difficult.
? How did MongoDB rug pull?
MongoDB used to be AGPLv3. A year after their IPO they realized "aww shit, Wall Street wants continuous growth, being profitable isn't enough" and decided to migrate to a completely new license, SSPL, that's designed to put everything surrounding the software in scope of the copyleft. The implication being that if Amazon were to offer MongoDB they'd also have to release all of AWS RDS[0] as a thing you could just download and use.
The community did not like this one bit, but MongoDB doesn't need to care about what the community thinks because they had CLA'd all their contributors. That is, if you wanted something in MongoDB upstream, you had to give MongoDB full copyright ownership over the software. Which exempts them from copyleft[1]. One of the critical parts of copyleft is the "no further restrictions" rule; otherwise copyleft is just proprietary with extra steps.
[0] I don't remember if they were hosting MongoDB as part of RDS or something else.
[1] As we've seen with the Neo4J lawsuit, copyright licenses cannot tie the hands of the copyright owner. The only way for copyleft to work is to create a Mexican standoff of contributors who will sue each other to death if any one of them decides to relicense without unanimous community consensus.
AWS never offered the AGPLv3 licensed version of the MongoDB server as part of any managed service. There were large cloud providers in China that _did_ offer MongoDB as a service. They also provided the corresponding source code [1]. Despite signs that they were complying with the obligations of the license, they had the SSPL drafted anyway.
Because once it was clear that software as a service was a compelling model, it was no longer appealing to give everyone the permissions needed to offer the software as part of a service (as AGPLv3 was always designed to do).
Changing the license seemingly worked, as a partnership was eventually announced [2].
[1] https://github.com/Tencent/CMONGO
[2] https://www.mongodb.com/company/newsroom/press-releases/tenc...
> The only real reason to use non-copyleft licenses for these kinds of projects is to be able to do the rug pull
That’s an exaggeration. The vast majority of permissively licensed projects have never “rug pulled” and never will. It might be one possible reason to choose such a license but it’s very far from the only one.
You do realize the owners of the copyright can relicense it under any terms they want, even if it's a copyleft license like GPL, right?
Unless a CLA transfers copyright to the project owner, the copyright owners are every historical contributor to the project. Each contribution is owned by the contributor alone and they alone are able to grant rights to it.
A CLA often tries to mitigate this by making contributors give the project owners special rights at the time of contribution.
(Note that even if relicensed, this itself can never revoke licenses granted for prior versions unless that license specifically had revocation written into it.)
Yes, a project can only be relicensed if a CLA assigning licensing rights (not ownership) is signed by all contributors, or if all code is owned by the entity relicensing it. Whether it's under a copyleft license, a permissive license, or even a proprietary license is irrelevant.
[dead]
All advantage accrues to hyperscaler "managed" versions. That's so much more fucked than a rug pull.
Amazon gets to make millions off of the thing you built.
"Equitable source" licenses with MAU / ARR limits, hyperscaler resale limits, and AGPL-like "entire stack must be open" clauses is the way to go. It's a "fuck you" to Amazon, Google, and Microsoft in particular and leaves you untouched.
Open source today is hyperscaler serfdom. Very few orgs are running Redis on bare metal, and a equitable source license can be made to always support the bare metal case.
It's sad as an open source lover how money fucks it all
If you open source something, the rich trillion dollar companies just steal it.
If you're okay with that, that's cool. But they'll profit off of your work and labor. And the worst part is that at scale, the advantages of the sum total of open source is used to compete with you and put price pressure on your salary and career options. To rephrase that, the hyperscalers are in a position to leverage open source to take advantage of market opportunities you cannot, and they can use that to compete with your business or competing businesses that might otherwise pay you better.
Open source needs anti-Google/Amazon/Microsoft clauses.
They aren't stealing anything, they use the rights they are granted by the developers of the project.
doesn't the Affero GPL v3 cover this? have seen some projects use it, I think it limits the server run parts of the software etc
Yes, it does! The "problem" with AGPL3 is that it has no carve-out for companies smaller than Amazon, Microsoft, or Google. If you use AGPL, you have to open source your entire stack.
Not everyone thinks infectious copyleft / free software is a problem. But it will mean that if you use AGPL3, every part of your stack has to be open. That doesn't work for everyone.
This is why "equitable source" / "fair source" is gaining traction. You can use a license like Apache and add in clauses with MAU/ARR/Hyperscaler limits that allows practically everyone else to use your software.
No, SSPL requires you to open source your entire stack. That's why the OSI and FSF rejected it.
AGPLv3 says, if you modify the software and put it on a network, you have to provide a link for anyone accessing the software to download the modified source. There's numerous drafting and technical problems with this arrangement[0] but the only parts of your stack you have to release are the parts that are actually part of the program covered by AGPLv3.
The "strong copyleft" strategy[1] is to identify a specific freedom-restricting behavior we don't like and prohibit just that. We're not saying "Amazon is not allowed to use this software", we're saying "Anyone who turns this software into a service needs to provide a way to fork the service and get the software back without losing anything". If such a copyleft license happens to scare a company into buying license exceptions, that's a happy accident.
In contrast equitable source doesn't say anything about freedom, it just says "these people need to pay a license fee". That's not FOSS, that's shareware. In FOSS, free-riding is not a bug. The problem with AWS isn't that they aren't paying a license fee, it's that they are building roach motels out of community projects.
[0] I'd link to Hector Martin's incredibly informative Mastodon posts regarding the subject, but he deleted his account after crashing out of LKML. As a substitute for that, I'll summarize my hazy memories:
- The intended compliance mechanism is to make your app a quine; but that only makes sense for webapps written in PHP/Python/etc. Someone actually put AGPLv3 on an Ethernet stack - how do you comply with that?
- It's unclear how license compliance works in a pull request driven Git workflow. If you're running the server locally for testing, and someone accesses it, have you violated the license?
- You can filter out the source offer with an HTTP proxy not covered by AGPLv3. That seems like a very wide loophole which the FSF apparently believes would work.
[1] e.g. AGPL, SSPL, OpenWatcom, etc
AGPL doesn’t require you to open source the entire stack. Only the changes you made to the AGPL software if you interact with over a network
AGPL does not and has not prevented hyperscalers from creating managed services for software licensed with it
That’s why mongo created the server side public license, which does require open sourcing the entire stack. MongoDB was AGPL before that
thank you for this tidbit i had no idea and am now more educated on FOSS licensing
Open source with anti-Google/Amazon/Microsoft clauses is called AGPL.
And yet somehow people keep making new projects under MIT license.
There are good legal reasons to avoid the GPL; there are open legal questions about whether the GPL and its variants are enforceable.
> there are open legal questions about whether the GPL and its variants are enforceable.
GPL v3 also has a nice clause that allows companies to "repair/cure" their non-compliance.
> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
your comment is logically defective
if that's your "good legal reason" to avoid the GPL, then it's just as much a "good legal reason" not to open source your work at all: if the GPL is not enforceable, that would mean you have used a non-copyleft license, which according to you is the thing you want to avoid for good legal reasons.
I didn't say you should avoid non-copyleft licenses? Indeed, all of my own OSS projects are non-copyleft.
loosely speaking:
you said "avoid gpl". reason? "unenforceable". eliminating gpl from consideration, thus you advocate non-copyleft licenses instead.
with me so far?
but gpl's "unenforceability" could only mean it turns into a non-copyleft license, one which you say one should not use, so if one shouldn't use gpl because in reality it is a non-copyleft license, then you must be against non-copyleft licenses.
just to state it again for clarity: "don't use gpl because copyleft is unenforceable so gpl is just MIT underneath, and I repeat, don't use it" is a recommendation not to use MIT license.
Please link to where I said not to use copyleft licenses. Check the usernames carefully.
Note that I don't agree that GPL and MIT are equivalent, or that GPL becomes a non-copyleft open source license if not enforceable. IANAL but it might revert to the regular copyright law for wherever you publish software, not an open source license.
> contributed a minor improvement to Redis under its original license [...] feeling betrayed as a contributor to a properly-FOSS-codebase
How does this work legally? You write some code, contribute it under a certain license... and... a company can just re-license your code under any license they like?
They require a Contributor License Agreement [0] whereby you grant them the copyright to your contribution. Which means they become the ultimate decision-maker for all contributions and can relicense however and whenever they wish.
[0] https://redis.io/legal/redis-software-grant-and-contributor-...
IMO the anger people direct at source available licences would be better directed at CLAs. They're what hands the power away.
Don't contribute to projects with CLAs people without reading them carefully and understanding what can happen! Then you won't be surprised if a project is relicensed because you know you signed an agreement to let them do that.
Mhm, so all the contributors to Redis ever have signed the Contributor License Agreement? It's certainly possible, but I'd be a little surprised.
A contributor license agreement that does anything besides put your code under the project's standard OSS license is a huge red flag.
I took a bit of umbrage with LineageOS for this.
CyanogenMod required a CLA to assign them copyright to Cyanogen Inc, only for them to basically kill the project. They forked it as LineageOS only to still require a CLA.
If anyone betrayed the spirit of Open Source, it is those who were trying to siphon off the entire commericial value of these projects while contributing little back to the project.
Companies have to pay people to work on it. Hell, they are even entitled to profit from it. A world with commerically viable Open Source is way better than without it. Ditching OSS companies for trying to survive 90% of revenues going to $1T cloud vendors is counter productive.
Due to license rug pull, I started an org wide movement from Redis to Valkey early this year and now there’s no turning back. It also does not help Redis that Valkey is cheaper offering by AWS (at least through Elasticache).
Comment was deleted :(
I am wondering why did you choose Redict over Valkey? The latter seems to be more popular.
I think we need to get back to state where we take software licenses serious in letter and in spirit. The transitions Redis made are pristine on a legal and moral level. Feeling betrayed is absolutely uncalled for.
> The transitions Redis made are pristine on a legal
Yes, of course.
> and moral level. Feeling betrayed is absolutely uncalled for.
Er, no, that's an unsubstantiated leap.
Not sure why Redis is blamed for the "rug pull". They didn't relicense the old versions. They just said "sorry guys, we don't want to support this project under those terms anymore". They are under no obligation to do that, legal or moral. Don't like it? No problem, fork it and maintain it yourself (as many did). But don't demand of others to continue to support the project under those terms if they do not want to. This is FOSS working as intended.
All those people that contributed, did so to the FOSS version. Their contributions live on in all the forks, both FOSS and proprietary (by Amazon & co., and Redis before today). So not sure where "betrayal" supposedly happened. Maybe when Amazon used their contributions too?
I mean isn't lying bad? They literally made public statements saying they "will always remain BSD." https://redis.io/blog/redis-license-bsd-will-remain-bsd/
They already had made a strong statement by choosing BSD when GPL was at their disposal. That is a much stronger statement than some blog post that reflects a momentary snapshot of their plans.
It is just that people don't hear what they don't want to hear. Every BSD or MIT is a loud and clear statement to deny the guarantee that derivative works will remain free and open.
People and companies are allowed to change opinions, why would anyone blame Redis or Elastic instead of Amazon for taking it all?
Because Redis said they would never do something and then changed their mind (which makes the whole concept of saying you will never do something useless), while Amazon never said they wouldn’t use open source software for free (which is their right).
You're not arguing for the honesty of individual companies, you're arguing against the profit mechanism.
I'd still trust more antirez than amazon as entities.
Never trust a company.
What does trusting antirez help me if he’s working for another company?
Lots of cynical takes in this thread - and I get it, there isn't a guarantee they won't relicense again in the future (they have a CLA that would let them) and people feel betrayed by the last license change.
I think we should celebrate this anyway. It's a smart decision, it's what the community wanted to happen and it would be great if other companies with janky licenses could see "Redis relicensed to open source and had a great boost out of it", not 'Redis relicensed to open source and it didn't help them at all".
I'm delighted. Thank you, team Redis.
Thank you, Simon. I believe that cases like Elastic and Redis returning back to an open source license is like writing on the rock: "open source won", at least in the system software space. Companies get created, prosper and fail over time, but this message is here to stay with us for a long time, and shapes the society of tomorrow. It's a win of the software community itself.
It's a win for the community over and against the corporations that are Redis and Elastic. They're not the good guys for giving in to the pressure. They tried to ride FOSS to prominence and then extract wealth on the backs of the community and found that the community mattered more than they did.
So sure, let's celebrate, but celebrate the community, not those who tried to pull the rug out from under them.
I said exactly that's a win of the community. But money are needed to pay the folks that work at open source software, and the companies that went for the SSPL were trying to protect their business (and, as a side effect, wanted or not, the ability to pay for such work). I believe the software world failed to protect open source software in the cloud era, but in general the environment that we collectively created made the open source software won.
I don't buy that justification. These two companies (and the others like them) set up a model for funding their business knowing full well that they would have to compete with others who were able to provide the same service they were. That's always been baked into FOSS—you can't plan around a monopoly when you're releasing your code for free, that's part of the trade-off you make.
When AWS and Co did provide hosting and provided it better than these guys could, now it's suddenly AWS who are the bad guys for using the FOSS software the way the license always said they could. Now we're suddenly supposed to ignore the terms on which FOSS has always been released and pick up our pitchforks against the big mean cloud provider.
Instead of sticking to the fundamental principles of FOSS (principles which they won business by openly espousing) and adapting their business to the fact that Elastic and Redis lost in the competition they knowingly set up, they fixated on hosting (on top of AWS and Co, no less!) as the business model and changed the licenses to give themselves a monopoly on it.
There is no possible way to compete against someone else who doesn't need to fund the development of the software but can still take in all the revenues and profits from deploying it as a service.
Not true, you can compete with the quality of the deployed service _separate_ from the development of the software. The quality of the service can include internal, at-scale optimizations that don't affect user-facing parity with the open-source software.
Open source companies with SaaS offerings need to have plans to differentiate themselves on hosting quality, not features. Yes, you can do better at hosting your own product than Amazon in many cases with customized, closed-source optimizations (that are unrelated to feature parity and does not intentionally limit the open-source/self-hosted form), support, etc.
Silly take due to how these resources must be distributed. Redis corp is paying developers to work on Redis itself, so they have less money to spend on building out a cloud offering. AWS was not paying developers to work on Redis, so they have more money to spend on improving their cloud offering (of Redis).
"Impossible to compete" is hyperbolic (you can almost always compete), but from a business fundamentals perspective it is not a level playing field and odds of success in that arena are very very low. And as my sibling comment points out, this is massively compounded by the fact that (by their very nature), hyperscalers are also hosting other infra for you, whereas Redis Cloud is only going to be offering hosted Redis. So even if the DX/UX is much better for Redis Cloud, it is still an uphill battle to convince corpos and even SMEs to split up their hosting like that.
> Not true, you can compete with the quality of the deployed service _separate_ from the development of the software.
That is true in a literal sense but (anecdotally) from the point of view of an engineer deploying ie; Redis, there is no real space for that angle of competition when the choice is between having to go through procurement hurdles to sign a contract with Redis Labs versus say; spinning up Redis on AWS which has zero hurdles because there is already an organization wide agreement in place for example.
The competition there isn't a level playing field as the deck is kind of stacked for most businesses where engineers don't have free reign to procurement what might be objectively the best hosting solution?
I've never really thought through this in any depth before now so don't consider this a great fleshed out argument, just an observation from my personal experience.
Honestly the idea that you can win by just being better is so deeply out of touch with enterprise that I assume anyone suggesting this doesn't understand the problem enough to be trying to argue against antirez of all people on Earth about this.
And that's not an appeal to authority: there just so genuinely and obviously is no such guarantee in enterprise that quality will ensure success that explaining it feels like trying to break down an elementary element.
Yeah, no. Customers will prefer to use redis in their existing AWS/Microsoft stack rather than use your deployed version in a different data center with a few micro optimizations.
They will pay Microsoft and Amazon, not you, the author of the software to use your software.
But that has always been true, from the beginning. It's baked in to the FOSS model and always has been.
If the companies had made a bad call in structuring their business and owned up to it I think we'd be having a very different conversation than we are. We're here because they failed to own up to it and instead tried to get people to raise pitchforks against AWS. Never mind that their intended model was the obviously doomed model of reselling AWS's hosting with a commission on top, and never mind that it was the trade-off they chose when they chose to release their software as FOSS and get the boost in adoption that comes with.
I do fully agree with antirez above that we need a new plan for funding FOSS. But I think that's a poor justification for the rug pulling and vilifying that the existing companies did.
If you solely fund the development of the software, you own the feature backlog. If you can't use that as a competitive advantage, I don't really know what to tell you.
You make it sound like there is a way to compete against the same organizations if they funded the development of the software - it's not possible to compete against hyperscalers, period. Now that Amazon is funding a fork, is Redis, Inc in a better or worse position to compete?
> now it's suddenly AWS who are the bad guys for using the FOSS software the way the license always said they could
That's not a fair representation of the objection. The thing under contention here is a behemoth freeloading for substantial profit. The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
It's conceptually similar to the disapproval employers with poor workplaces are subjected to. Even if they technically obey all the labor laws, by prioritizing their profits over worker health and well being they garner a bad reputation. "But we didn't do anything illegal" isn't going to get them out of it.
> The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
Why? No one has been able to articulate this for me. Why does Amazon using the software cause the community to decline? Doesn't it make the software more popular with broader reach?
When you give software away for free, you've given it away for free. You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?
> Why does Amazon using the software cause the community to decline?
It doesn't - at least directly.
> You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?
You're setting up a cause and effect here that I never put forward. It isn't the use itself that suddenly becomes problematic.
The behavior is the issue. If everyone else pitches in and you don't, you come out ahead. It's the game theory behind cooperative behavior. If only you abstain the community isn't necessarily worse off, but if everyone abstains then it is (ie compared to if they all contributed). The optimal outcome for the group as a whole is for everyone to pitch in.
I do get where you're coming from. Legally speaking it's quite silly for someone investing money not to proactively prevent this from the beginning.
This isn't about the legality though. It's about social responsibilities. Entities with more resources - individuals, corporations, and even governments - are generally held to higher standards in the public eye. The legal system alone is not sufficient to make society a nice place to live.
> But money are needed to pay the folks that work at open source software
Cute. Can I have a check for my redis contributions now please?
I strongly suspect there was pressure from within these companies, among developers as well.
Comment was deleted :(
I’d say that open source definitely lost, and lost real bad.
Free Software won, as you ended up adopting the AGPL.
It’s an important distinction.
No its not.
> it would be great if other companies with janky licenses could see "Redis relicensed to open source and had a great boost out of it", not 'Redis relicensed to open source and it didn't help them at all".
If the other companies can't figure out that adopting a janky license and alienating the community is the self-inflicted problem, then they are beyond help. Relicensing to open source not helping the company may serve as a cautionary tale for other companies and may prevent them from repeating the same mistake. As an open source enthusiast, the worst case scenario is companies switching licenses tactically and frequently to test the waters and walking back with no consequences; I'd prefer the cost of such actions to be swift and severe.
It could be cynical, but I think it is important to show severe consequences for breaking trust between a company and its community. Anyone that saw their history and contributes to it must be aware they are doing unpaid work for a company.
I don't want companies to see, "re-licensing to janky licenses is risk-free, because we can always go back to the old license if people react too negatively". I would like them to see, "re-licensing to janky licenses is a death sentence which immediately makes your product almost completely irrelevant and causes the community to switch to a fork and never switch back".
>Lots of cynical takes in this thread - and I get it, there isn't a guarantee they won't relicense again in the future (they have a CLA that would let them) and people feel betrayed by the last license change.
Oh good. There is still hope of it returning to the original BSD license. ( I am still using good old Memcached )
I also appreciate this perspective because you never know what's going on in the board room. I have seen some morally upstanding leaders make questionable decisions that were totally out of character for them, all for the sake of appeasing a narrow-minded investor.
From this post on the Redis blog https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ it looks like they've made a bunch of new features available under the new AGPL license too:
> Integrating Redis Stack technologies, including JSON, Time Series, probabilistic data types, Redis Query Engine and more into core Redis 8 under AGPL
Redis Query Engine is new-to-me (I stopped following Redis closely after the license change) - it looks like an in-memory alternative to a lot of the things you might do with Elasticsearch: https://redis.io/docs/latest/develop/interact/search-and-que...
With syntax that looks something like this:
FT.SEARCH places "museum @city:(san francisco|oakland) @shape:[CONTAINS $poly]" PARAMS 2 poly 'POLYGON((-122.5 37.7, -122.5 37.8, -122.4 37.8, -122.4 37.7, -122.5 37.7))' DIALECT 3
Dismayingly, the CEO misspelled antirez's last name in this press release, https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/. That's so incredibly disrespectful:
> Following our license change, in November of 2024 Salvatore Sanfillipo (antirez) decided to rejoin Redis as a developer evangelist. Collaborating with Salvatore on new capabilities, company strategy and community engagement has been a true privilege that has made a major impact that will pay dividends into the future.
If it's a true privilege, you should earn it by not misspelling his name. Actions speak louder than words.
Pink Floyd has a song about this:
Well, I've always had a deep respect and I mean that most sincere
The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think
Oh, by the way, which one's Pink?
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it riding the gravy train
We're just knocked out, we heard about the sell-out
You gotta get an album out, you owe it to the people
We're so happy we can hardly count
Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart?
It's a hell of a start, it could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.
Comment was deleted :(
[flagged]
I'm curious whether the community will trust Redis-the-company again after this, or if they'll choose to stick with Valkey. The other concern is at least some big company legal departments are wary of AGPL software, which makes Valkey, still BSD, more attractive to them.
Edit: Regardless, thank you and the rest of the folks inside Redis for pushing to bring this back to OSS!
We kept using redis, the license change never affected us. We had no reason to switch.
I imagine there is quite a large, quiet fraction (majority) of users who were the same way.
Not to say it’s not an important discussion!
Many people switched to Valkey and didn't even know it. A lot like how many users are using MariaDB but think they are using MySQL.
Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.
Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.
If I update my packages and suddenly an open-source software is replaced with a closed-source one, I would blame my distro. It's totally normal for distros to replace packages like this with the best replacement they have.
I think that is not normal at all, and absolutely should not be normalized.
It is much worse for my package manager to install a totally different software, than for my package manager to install a new version of the software I asked for that now has a different license. Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.
If the distro wants to do something, they can throw a warning up saying "this package is now licensed with the SSPL, would you still like to install? Try installing valkey for a BSD-licensed alternative". But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.
You're a bit late to the party. Its been normalized for almost as long as distros have existed.
No, you don't just randomly have a different package installed one day, at least on major distros. The next distro release will include the new package. If for any reason you care, you can always go install the other one you want instead as well, it just won't be part of the default package repos.
Generally, the replacement packages are 1:1 with the one they are replacing, and/or compatibility shims are included during the install. Its seamless. Also, generally the package manager does tell you what it's installing.
The major Linux distros are very careful about this stuff. The two largest have huge enterprise user bases, and it's never been a problem.
Many of the Linux distros are extremely opinionated on what goes into their default package repositories - it's a major reason why you choose certain distros. You are delegating all of this concern about packages, compatibility, bug/security fixes, and licenses and whatever to the maintainers of the distro. They are very careful not to break existing systems, and aren't going to surprise you one day with a major disruptive change. For them to replace Redis, for instance, with Valkey, it's going to be on the next major os release, it'll be a drop in replacement (all Redis commands continue to work, etc), and you'll have an opportunity to see this change while installing packages. This isn't "shoot from the hip" npm style stuff...
> Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.
It's also not a free and open source software license. This is disqualifies software using it from being in the main repos for various distros.
Seems like some sort of user prompting could be acceptable, though.
On Arch Linux, you are explicitly asked whether to replace a package with the (distro-)designated successor.
> But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.
Except it's a fork, so it is what you asked for. The name changed, sure, and there's a different governance arrangement. But pretty much the entire point of using a distro is offloading decisions such as which developers and repositories to trust onto the maintainers.
If you want to make those decisions for yourself then you should obviously be cloning and building from source. I'm not just saying that - I myself do exactly that in cases where it matters to me.
If you don't care about license purity then perhaps don't use a distro that explicitly filters on that?
This would suck if you wrote scripts that looked for a process called 'redis' running on your machine.
I'd imagine the package would have a symlink for redis that points to valkey
Even with a symlink, the running process is going to be called valkey, not redis
Only if valkey explicitly changes the program name after it starts, or Does something like calls exec on it's program directly. At least on linux.
I disagree probably because I'm just used to it. Most of your major distros do this, including Fedora and Debian (the two largest). Usually this is due to license issues.
"I'm used to it" is a terrible reason for disagreement.
Problem is, redis threw their users under the bus by relicensing [1], and user would end up with an outdated redis version.
1: https://github.com/redis/redis/commit/0b34396924eca4edc52446...
> Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.
Using a distro that handles things your way is your privilege. I assume most people who install packages care about the functionality they provide, not the brand name - so it seems like a fair default for distros that aim to appeal to broad user bases imo.
> Using a distro that handles things your way is your privilege. I assume most people who install packages care about the functionality they provide, not the brand name
This is an amusing example of "the duality of man," having just finished reading a bunch of comments to the effect of "the user should have the ultimate say as to what apps they can install from the App Store" in the Apple thread.
But you do have the ultimate say in this case. You can reconfigure the mainstream package managers in all sorts of ways, set up your own repos, anything you'd like.
I use a distro because I don't have the time or energy to do all of that for myself. It's a purely voluntary arrangement unlike the iOS/Android duopoly that modern society is increasingly built on top of.
It's not just the brand name, it's also the binary name. All the support code I have expects the binary to be named 'redis'
Also, what happens if functionality drifts?
I understand your point, but that's how distros handles mostly licence issues. And I do believe that's the right way, we should strive for OSS projects in a distro that literally focuses on it.
100% if they wanna stop shipping redis they should just remove the redis package
Not really. Post-closing the source, the thing called “Redis” was the actual fork, and Valkey was the original community-built product. Users who want existing configurations to continue working on the same terms need “install redis” command not to break their licensing expectations.
First, they didn't "close the source". The new license is not closed source. You can argue why you think the license is bad, but it is not closed source.
Second, I don't know about you, but continuing to function in the same way is my primary need for systems I am managing. When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before. Switching binary names breaks that promise.
My setup has scripts that do things like check that a process named "redis" is running... this will break if the process is now called "valkey"
I feel like all the commenters live in some kind of crazy alternate world where purity of license matters more than stability of systems.
> When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before.
But where do you put the blame?
The distro for making that change, or the redis company for breaking your software stack?
Look, I know licensing decisions are important and a lot of people care a lot about them.
For me and my company, though, it just doesn't matter. We don't use redis in a way that would ever come into conflict with the license, so it really doesn't affect me. Redis didn't break my software stack with the license change. I am sorry, but I just can't get up the energy to care that much about which license they choose. If it helps them make money, fine go for it. I can't root that hard for the side Amazon is on.
From the blog post it seems like existing users kept using Redis but new users adopted alternatives instead.
> it seems like existing users kept using Redis
Redis user since it appeared and I switched my servers (~15) to Valkey - partially because of the shenanigans, partially because Arch is moving Redis to archive.
Same here. The response from the community was valid, but basically didn't affect us.
I am thinking the same that going to AGPL may actually push more people to Valkey.
Although I haven't checked if ValKey any substantial development since the fork.
Yeah, there has been a lot of stuff like performance [1] and efficiency improvements [2]. A lot of the contributors, that didn't work for Redis labs but worked on Redis OSS before the fork, moved to Valkey and they continued to contribute.
[1] https://valkey.io/blog/unlock-one-million-rps-part2/ [2] https://valkey.io/blog/new-hash-table/
Well Valkey has more commits to their repository then Redis does, and more contributors. So it appears to be active.
In fact, some of Redis 8’s new features were taken from Valkey source code.
Lol feels a little hypocritical to complain about proprietary clouds, then take open source software from a competitor and embed it into your own
Valkey has RDMA support, which offers significant performance improvements.
We switched to Valkey on our Elasticache instances and immediately noticed a performance improvement in our usecase that allowed us to reduce number of instances. Not really interested in moving back to Redis at this point.
All of this aside, Redis-the-company has some of the least tactful salespeople I've come across in my long stint in this industry. Used car sales level tactics.
Between that and the licensing, I would never consider dealing with them.
The team of sales was, AFAIK, rebuilt from scratch recently. Please if this happened recently tell me, and I'll make sure to report back. Thanks.
Comment was deleted :(
I very much doubt that anyone will stick with valkey after the PaaS providers switch back to just offering Redis proper.
Why would PaaS providers switch back to offering Redis? They've clearly all already invested a lot in Valkey (AWS, GCP, Heroku).
AWS, GCP, surely are invested: they paid for ValKey, they forked to avoid doing revenue sharing with Redis in any way :D IMHO it's a matter of what the community does, and it, in turn, this depends on how well we are able to develop Redis.
It's not just licensing and hyper-scalers, it's also a matter of development quality and direction. For instance, now in Redis you can find substantial more stuff not available in ValKey, including hash items expires, Vector Sets that are very useful for a number of things, the probabilistic data structures just introduced with Redis 8, and so forth.
Comment was deleted :(
If Redis is superior then sticking with Valkey would just be throwing good money after bad. Hopefully those companies are competent enough to understand the concept of sunk costs.
Maybe Valkey has served its purpose in pressuring Redis into playing ball.
Just answering "why would". Whether or not Redis is better then Valkey or if it would be worth it to switch back is not something I know.
AWS and GCP offer valkey-based versions of products that are typically based on Redis, but those versions are currently, generally, preview-grade, and statistically zero customers are using them. They still offer the original, Redis-based versions of those products, which, statistically, 100% of their customers are using.
Do you have data to back up your claims? I see a lot of customer claims for Valkey here, https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/customers/. Neither of the AWS or GCP offerings are in preview.
>and statistically zero customers are using them
You've said this twice now, but not provided any data or even a hand-wave to a possible source so that others could go get the data and look at it.
If it's statistically something, where are the stats?
valkey was introduced as an opt-in alternative to Redis as an implementation choice for specific products offered by the the major cloud providers approximately 9 months ago. Generally valkey is shown as a preview or beta or whatever option. Nobody has performed any kind of automatic or default transition from Redis to valkey for existing customers.
My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident.
>My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident.
I have no idea what the actual stats are. But no, I don't find your "statistically 0%" to be self-evident, especially in light of the other comments and links in this thread, and what I've heard elsewhere.
I was hoping, since you presented it so confidently, that you had something more than "trust me". In another comment you say you have evidence of marketshare, maybe you could post that?
Their stats are "I asked an LLM", no, that's not joke, see this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43860256
My stats are not "I asked an LLM", that was a response I gave to a specific comment, go away
If your stats aren't from "trust me" or an LLM, can you please just post where you are getting your market share stats from?
But if that’s your typical method of research, I have bad news for you about the quality of the statistics you’re relying on.
I recently moved on to a new company, but my prior company had a pretty large scale Elasticache Redis deployment in production (over 50 large clusters in us-east-1), and were in the middle of a complete migration to Valkey due cost savings, improved performance, and reduction in memory usage.
We've already completed migrating several large production clusters and I can confidently say that the migration had been pretty smooth and seamless.
Valkey is certainly production ready (at least on AWS it is). The team is looking forward to expedite and complete the migration
>Nobody has performed any kind of automatic or default transition from Redis to valkey for existing customers.
>My claim that statistically zero (cloud provider) customers are using valkey should, I sincerely hope, be self-evident.
This is simply not true. For example, Aiven (a cloud provider) completely ended support for Redis at the end of March and migrated existing users to Valkey. https://aiven.io/docs/platform/reference/end-of-life#aiven-f...
Statistically nobody is using valkey.
Amazon really encourages valkey in the elasticache dashboard. There's a banner advertising lower prices and it's listed first in the dropdown when you go to create one. Default settings do have power.
Sure, but the impact of new customers and their decisions take a long time before they impact net statistics. All evidence I can find, regardless of domain or context, suggests Redis vs. valkey marketshare is something around a 99%/1% difference.
> All evidence I can find, regardless of domain or context, suggests Redis vs. valkey marketshare is something around a 99%/1% difference.
What evidence did you find?
[flagged]
LLMs are not a source.
but what if they confirm my priors?
sick burn bro
Why/how would you expect an LLM to know that info?
If you use the latest versions of Redis, you are benefiting from the continued efforts of the Valkey development community. [1]
This is Open Source working well.
Unfortunately, the reverse flow does not work.
I wonder how that works legally with CLA. If the person who originally wrote the code is not the one who signs off the PR. I assume the lawyers have signed off on it.
Did they maintain the author's copyright notice as required by BSD-3?
Well, now that Redis is once again Open Source and even Free Software, that should change.
I've been using Valkey simply because after I updated to the latest Fedora version, it dropped redis and pointed me to Valkey instead. I assume as more distros do this and more people update their systems, the Valkey user base will grow. But perhaps with the AGPL redis that will no longer be the case.
That kind of assertion really needs some backup or it's just noise. I'll be honest and say that I have no idea what the usage stats for Valkey are -- and it may be that it's a drop in the bucket compared to Redis. But I don't know. Can you back this up or is this just your gut feeling?
Are there usage stats available? How do you know this?
My guess is they are making it up. AWS has no public information, but there are some high profile customers that have migrated https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/customers/.
Without sources, it's a "statistically worthless" comment :)
Based on Internet-accessible services the number of Valkey servers is low (~120):
https://trends.shodan.io/search?query=valkey_version+port%3A...
Here's a chart of all Redis-compatible services (~55,000):
https://trends.shodan.io/search?query=port%3A6379+redis_vers...
And how representative are publicly accessible redis/valkey instances for redis/valkey usage in general? And can shodan even differentiate Redis from a Valkey instance setup in a backwards-compatible way without being able to authenticate?
My guess is most people are using Redis via cloud providers. Did any cloud providers switch away from Redis?
AWS supports Valkey for Elasticache, and they actually bill it 33% cheaper. We use it and it works well.
ValKey is cheaper in AWS than Reddis
AWS Elasticache gave a nice discount to switch to valkey w/ 1 button click no downtime migration path
Wasn’t the whole point (or one of the major ones) of Valkey so that AWS could use it?
[flagged]
Yeah, all the open source distributions and most open source projects switching to valkey must be "nobody".
what do you mean? i work at a FAANG-adjacent company and our entire engineering org was told to switch to valkey, with an internal deadline from ops. My team supports a public facing service and we made the switch 2 months ago.
It was pretty easy, a small config change and some performance testing to make sure it worked well at scale.
Maybe nobody is talking about it online but some people have definitely switched.
Yet. It's a drop-in replacement, and both faster and cheaper.
I don't know about valkey but I got word Nvidia was switching away from Redis.
One of the big things I love about Redis is that it’s become this tool for me to learn new techniques and explore data. Like, the new vector sets feature has let me really explore dense vectors and custom search and taxonomy mapping and all sorts of areas that seemed like a high barrier to entry for me, but now I’m just streaming stuff into llama.cpp with an embedding model and storing it in Redis and being able to do mappings between different data sets super efficiently.
A big part of that is API design - I can’t think of another system that is as well thought out as the Redis API - it’s deceptively simple and because of that I didn’t have to wait for client libraries to incorporate the new Redis features - they just work cause they all speak RESP and I can just send raw commands.
All of this is to say that I was really happy to hear Antirez was back working on Redis and it’s paying off in more ways than I could have imagined. People can use valkey or whatever they want as an alternative - but I like Redis because it’s always pushing forward and letting me explore new things that otherwise wouldn’t feel as “at my fingertips” as it does in Redis.
Thank you so much for your kind words! I tried hard, with Vector Sets, to follow exactly the "wave" you are referring here, I hope I was able to. Thanks.
The Vector Sets, omg. Thank you, so much thank you :)
Redis is in SQLite and Wireguard league of simplicity and elegance.
Could you please link any blog post which goes into what you are talking about, I feel I am also at the high barrier to enter situation about this stuff
From the CEO blog post - https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/
>This achieved our goal—AWS and Google now maintain their own fork
Was this really the goal though? Forcing your biggest users to fork your software and maintain their own divergent version is not really good for anyone. Sure, Amazon and Google (or AWS and GCP - type confusion in the source material) now have to contribute some more engineering hours to the open fork, but why would anyone still want to use Redis now that there's a permissively licensed alternative maintained by the same cloud hyperscalers who will end up running it for you?
Isn't it though? They weren't contributing before and they weren't paying Redis corp before, now they are at least contributing to a fork (and still not paying Redis corp).
Presumably some of the things being worked on in Valkey, etc can be upstreamed back to Redis in some form (not entirely straightforward since it is a hard fork with a diff license, but concepts can be borrowed back too).
e.g. apparently Valkey has introduced some performance improvements. Redis can implement similar if it seems worthwhile. Without the fork those performance ideas might have never surfaced.
They were contributing a lot. So Redis-the-company lost a lot of engineering expertise when they all left for valkey.
> They weren't contributing before
That is not true. Companies like AWS had paid staff working as OSS Redis core maintainers before the licencing schism. This talk of "achieving their goals" is just bluster serving no reason other than damage control.
Yeah this take kind of surprised me, you really wanted Valkey to be the default option for cloud customers ensuring they'll have no migration path to your own offering? I just don't get it. You were getting $0 and now you're getting $0.
How often were people migrating from AWS Redis to Redis Cloud in the first place? I'm guessing not a lot.
+1. Not a lot, I'd guess. Every time I've used Redis (or ValKey in more recent times), latency more than 20ms or so would have been terrible.
I've seen workloads perform better without caching at all at 30ms
I don't get it, why don't gcp and aws just pay the Redis company instead of paying their own (expensive!) engineers to maintain a fork?
Because they think it's cheaper/better for them.
Are there compensating benefits? For web browsers, having multiple, competing implementations is considered good.
Are there benefits to the ecosystem? Possibly.
But the person you replied to was talking about Redis's goal, and I don't think it's likely their goal had anything to do with having a competitor to themselves around. Even if they did want that, they could've just bankrolled (or engineered) a fork; changing a license to one that causes your largest users to do the work themselves is a rather roundabout way to do it.
I can almost kind of see the large users needing to work together on a replacement, meaning that replacement might as well be open-source, meaning Redis can get future improvements that were funded by the fork users (who Redis was upset wasn't paying them) as a semi-vindictive, semi-useful goal. But it's still roundabout. If that was really the plan, it could've been articulated better in this postmortem to make it clear the "goal" bit hadn't just been BS'd.
Our company made the switch over to Valkey, and we've invested hundreds of engineering hours into it already. I don't see us switching back at this point especially when it's clear Redis could easily pull the bait-and-switch again.
Your company invested hundreds of engineering hours switching from Redis to a clean fork of Redis?
I can easily see this for a midsize company.
While it's likely an easy process to drop in valkey, creating the new instances, migrating apps to those new instances, and making sure there's not some hidden regression (even though it's "drop in") all takes time.
At a minimum, 1 or 2 hours per app optimistically.
My company has hundreds of apps (hurray microservices). That's where "hundreds of hours" seems pretty reasonable to me.
We don't have a lot of redis use in the company, but if we did it'd have taken a bit of time to switch over.
Edit: Dead before I could respond but I figured it was worthwhile to respond.
> It's literally just redis with a different name, what is there to test?
I've seen this happen quite a bit in opensource where a "x just named y" also happens to include tiny changes that actually conflict with the way we use it. For example, maybe some api doesn't guarantee order but our app (in a silly manor) relied on the order anyways. A bug on us, for sure, but not something that would surface until an update of redis or this switch over.
It can also be the case that we were relying on an older version of redis, the switchover to valkey necessitates that we now bring in the new changes to redis that we may not have tested.
These things certainly are unlikely (which is why 1 or 2 hours as an estimate, it'd take more if these are more common problems). Yet, they do and have happened to me with other dependency updates.
At a minimum, simply making sure someone didn't fat finger the new valkey addresses or mess up the terraform for the deployment will take time to test and verify.
> My company has hundreds of apps (hurray microservices). That's where "hundreds of hours" seems pretty reasonable to me.
Sounds like a huge disadvantage in your company’s choice of software architecture to me.
There's definitely pros and cons to this approach.
The pro being that every service is an island that can be independently updated and managed when needs be. Scaling is also somewhat nicer as you only need to scale the services under heavy load rather than larger services.
It also makes for better separation of systems. The foo system gets a foo database and when both are under load we only have to discuss increasing hardware for the foo system/database and not the everything database.
The cons are that it's more complex and consistency is nearly impossible (though we are mostly consistent). It also means that if we need a system wide replacement of a service like redis, you have to visit our 100+ services to see who depends on it. That rarely comes up as most companies don't do what redis did.
that’s a loaded statement without understanding the company.
Sometimes large companies acquire smaller companies and keep the lights on in the old system for a while. They may not even use a similar tech stack!
Sometimes they want to cleanly incorporate the acquired systems into the existing architecture but that might take years of development time.
Sometimes having a distributed system can be beneficial. Pros / cons.
and sometimes it’s just a big company with many people working in parallel, where it’s hard to deploy everything as a single web app in a single pipeline.
Indeed. Microservice zealot 'architects' love to ignore the work that has to into each microservice and the overhead of collaboration between services. They'll spend a couple of years pretending to work on that problem in any meaningful way, then move on to a different company to cause similar chaos
My understanding is that Valkey was forked directly from redis. So assuming you migrate at the forks point-in-time, then it literally is the same code.
Yes, but not the same infrastructure and configuration and documentation. Any reasonable operation will also do validation and assurance. That adds up if you have a sizable operation. "Hundreds of hours" is also not some enormous scale for operations that, say, have lots of employees, lots of data, and lots of instances.
The part you are thinking of is not the time consuming part.
[dead]
I believe it. There are companies that invested hundreds of engineering hours to rename master to main.
That is even more ridiculous, at least switching to a clean fork of Redis has business reasons. Following the latest cultural fads, less so.
One would find it hard to believe how often we hardcoded "master" to every corner of the software that ever touches any VCS.
At the very least you have to validate everything that touches redis, which means finding everything that touches redis. Internal tools and docs need to be updated.
And who knows if someone adopted post-fork features?
If this is a production system that supports the core business, hundreds of hours seems pretty reasonable. For a small operation that can afford to YOLO it, sure, it should be pretty easy.
But why are they spending any time switching away from Redis at all unless they are a hosting provider offering Redis-as-a-service?
I wasn't aware the license had any negative affect on private internal use.
The negative effect is that you have to bring the lawyers back in, and they tend to take an extremely conservative position on what might be litigated as offering “Redis-as-a-service”.
Would they? My experience is the lawyers sign off when software is being chosen, but then they aren't consulted again.
After that, it is just updating version numbers. Lawyers don't sign off on version upgrades, why would I bring this to them?
Many legal departments cannot afford nuance when a newsworthy license change occurs. The kneejerk reaction is to switch away to mitigate any business risk.
I doubt having lawyers review your usage is more expensive than spending hundreds of hours of dev time to migrate.
Our lawyers looked at SSPL since we do host software for customers and it does use Redis and went "Eh, this is as clear as mud." so Valkey it is!
Comment was deleted :(
By switch I mean that all new projects use Valkey instead of Redis, and we've invested hundreds of hours into those new projects.
There are companies using many thousands of Redis instances storing petabytes of data with millions of users.
Now consider a no-down-time migration. How long do you think that'll take to engineer and execute?
Even the infrastructure switch and testing should take a lot of time, yet the application level tests etc.
Why did you not pay Redis for a licence instead? I'm genuinely curious. Did you feel uncomfortable being tied to a license fee that might increase in the future, or was it just too expensive?
What? Isn't Valkey a "drop in" replacement? I switched a couple of deployment, it "just worked" but maybe I'm just too simple.
how does it take hundreds of hours to swap out a back end when you're using a trivial protocol like redis?
did you switch out the client or something? maybe the problem is not using pluggable adapters? is your business logic coupled to the particular database client API? oof.
I know the cluster clients are different (been there, done that) but hundreds of hours, seriously? or was that just hyperbole?
I think you might underestimate how little time hundreds of hours is. It's very, very easy to reach your first hundred hours in a task, e.g. taking a 40 hour week, 3 engineers = 120 hours.
If valkey is working, why spend that time reverting to redis, when you could be spending it on things that are actually going to provide value?
Hundreds could be 200 which, at 10 hours a day 5 days a week, is like a week and a half for a team of 3. It seems quite possible if you had to do testing/benchmarking, config changes, deploy the system, watch metrics, etc.
My company is relatively small. With probably 6 separate redis instances deployed in various places (k8s, bare metal, staging and prod environments) and dozens of (micro)services using them it's probably at least 40 hours (one person-week) to migrate everything at this point. Also there are things like documentation, legacy apps that keep working but nobody wants to spend time updating them, naming problems everywhere (renaming "redis" everywhere with zero downtime would be a huge pain), outdated documentation, possibly updates in CI, CD, and e2e tests, and probably more problems that ight become apparent in scale.
And we're honestly not large. For a mid size company, hundreds hours sound reasonable. For a big company the amount of work must be truly staggering.
By switch I mean that all new projects use Valkey instead of Redis, and we've invested hundreds of hours into those new projects. We've also tried stuff with the Valkey Glide client.
They still require a CLA [1] so there's nothing stopping them from doing another relicense to a proprietary license tomorrow.
The only way this remains open source forever is to accept AGPL-only licensed patches.
[1]: https://github.com/redis/redis/blob/d65102861f51af48241f607a...
That's sort of fine. As a personal user, someone could fork and maintain redis in that case, which wasn't true in the SSPL era.
Now AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under, but also Redis is so far down my priorities that it wasn't a project I was going to be issuing PRs for anyway.
> AGPL+CLA is not a license I'd contribute under,
Why not? Is it because only one company can make proprietary fork?
Would you rather contribute to MIT software where everyone can make proprietary fork? Or AGPL without CLA where nobody can make proprietary fork?
> Would you rather contribute to MIT software where everyone can make proprietary fork?
In my case that is it.
I'm totally fine with people taking my MIT licensed code in a MIT licensed project and running with it.
However, working for free on someone elses code base knowing that they can always go commercial with it or do whatever they want while I and the rest of the community is stuck with AGPL, that is something I'd rather avoid, if possible.
Yes, the asymmetry is a problem. If the terms the company has to use my contributions is more favorable to them than the terms under which I can use their contributions, then I'm not into playing that game.
There is an asymetry anyway as the company is probably contributing more than 90% of the code, maintain the infrastructure for the CI and website, do the promotion of the software, and more.
Depending of the motivation for your contribution, you get what you want, eg, the feeling of contributing to an open source project presumably used by many people, or having that entity to maintain your patch "for free".
You can keep your change in a fork if you like, but the likelihood that your fork is getting used is not that big, and mean more work from your side to rebase the change.
I got a really stupid email from Redis®* a year ago that wanted me to put a disclaimer on the “first page” where Redis®* appeared on a website, as if it was a paper legal document.
That was the very moment Redis®* died for me—I’ve never encountered a tech company that was so aloof about how tech works.
Hopefully that damage is undone.
—
*Redis is a registered trademark of Redis Ltd. Any rights therein are reserved to Redis Ltd. Any use by Brad Gessler is for referential purposes only and does not indicate any sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation between Redis and Brad Gessler.
You are right, and this attitude was reverted. You can't imagine what law departments can do even without explicit mandate, if not correctly moderated. Redis grew very fast in the middle of a CEO switch and I believe this created many issues like this one. Now, we should be past that. To provide an example in a very important field, client libraries, the decision was to help with the code sending PRs and don't interfer with things like trademarks.
It's not the only company that does this. That's why foundations typically ask for the trademark and logos as part of donating code.
When Antirez left Redis, he wrote an amazing blog post I go back to often [0]. In there he said:
"I write code in order to express myself, and I consider what I code an artifact, rather than just something useful to get things done. I would say that what I write is useful just as a side effect, but my first goal is to make something that is, in some way, beautiful. In essence, I would rather be remembered as a bad artist than a good programmer."
I'm glad Antirez was seeing his art losing it's beauty and now, is reclaiming it!
So nice to hear talk like that in the AI "your code is worthless age". Keep the craft going!
Comment was deleted :(
If there's a lesson to be learned from this drama, it's that changing a software license from a liberal open-source one to a anti-competitive one (even if the source is still available and open to contribution) is a one-way door and loses trust. Once done, even if you recognize your error and revert the license, you're not getting that trust back.
The announcement just happened. I don’t know that we know the results yet.
Elastic announced they were switching back a few months ago, we should be able to measure the results by now.
> you're not getting that trust back
It's not black and white. They'll get some trust back at least.
Anyone capable of pulling a rug once is capable of doing it twice.
You can't win all the trust back at once, it's a process.
Ironically, when Redis changed their license a couple of months ago, I commented back then [1]:
But who knows what the future holds? Maybe the Redis team will change their mind and revert back the decision like Elastic Search did a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41394797
Yeah, that future had come, and Redis is free again!
Thanks antirez and to all the team behind Redis.
_________________
This doesn't solve anything, Redis has proved that it is willing to do a rug pull, and how much they are willing to hurt the community when they do (taking over client libraries, etc). I don't see a reason to go back from valkey. Again and again, Redis Labs has been the worst thing about Redis, I'm glad we now have an other option.
I think the big drop in trust was the change in licensing away from permissive in the first place, but AGPL-today is a much better choice than SSPL-forever.
You probably can't recover from a loss of trust in low single digit years unfortunately, but this is a good first step towards the project rebuilding the OSS community that existed around redis initially.
Thanks for fighting for this. Hopefully this shows more companies stuck on source-available that you can achieve similar goals with OSS licenses.
Gladly, Valkey has other benefits besides its more permissive license compared to Redis. One of them is multi-threading support, which makes it pretty easy for someone like me—who has a bit of a skill issue with DevOps—to actually utilize all CPU cores for my caching layer.
The I/O threading was initially implemented by myself, when I was still working on the core before rejoining, and is also available in Redis. So this is actually another case of the benefits ValKey got for being able to clone Redis, receiving money from the hyper-scalers that just want to maximize their revenues...
They made certain improvements later, but Redis 8 (see the release notes in my blog post if you are curious) improved this stuff a lot, too.
Also, Redis 8 contains a new data structure, Vector Sets, that allows to do many useful things, together with more probabilistic data structures, single hash fields expires, and many other stuff. It is not factually correct that ValKey has any features edge over Redis I believe. We will see in the next year which project takes the best development path: this is what really matters.
The Valkey implementation of multi-threading is fundamentally different than what existed in Redis. The history dates back to work done in ElastiCache that was released as "Enhanced IO", https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2019/03/amazon-el.... The version released in Redis could only do about 350k RPS because of poor memory locality of operations, the inability to do command processing while handling I/O, and the inability to offload much of the TCP read path. The new version in Valkey can achieve 1.2M RPS.
"They made certain improvements later", should be "we threw away the old implementation and built a better one."
1. The fundamental idea was mine. Ideas can be improved, of course, and that's good. That was my point. However, allow me to say that Redis is fundamentally a "software of ideas" than anything else. Technologically it is far from impressive (Redis, ValKey, all the forks).
2. Redis 8 improves the same idea, too, released today.
3. If you claim [in a different comment here] you provided a lot of code to Redis, why you didn't send a pull request for that? So, you are practically saying you were using, at Amazon, all the BSD code we provided, but could not provide an important part of the code to us? You see how broken such model was? At least stop defending it.
4. We can now copy the implementation: the parts are reversed (the irony!), and your code is BSD as our was for 15 years. When we avoid doing things like that, is because we have issues with how certain things were made.
5. I don't understand the motivations of you and other AWS people commenting here today. You work for a company that is creating issues to the OSS ecosystem: this is hard to deny. You cloned (and, yes, the license allowed for it) the code of Redis, and work on it so that hyperscalers can continued to do what they used to do. We bring Redis back to AGPL, and you are here to do the interests of Amazon in the comments. Did you see me commenting your stuff, when you release your things, with comments like "ah! But this is unfair"?
There is to make choices. I understand that it was cool to continue to work at a Redis fork, and part of the incredible thing open source is, is that forks survive in the hands of different teams (but design ideas can be misunderstood and projects may turn into other projects). So if you are happy to hack on ValKey, I hope you'll have the best experience out of it. But there is to make choices on how/when to interact.
This exchange makes me sad. I know we can do better.
I don't understand why so many people think that it's impossible to have open source in your heart while working for a big company in your day job. I don't understand why people who have dedicated a lot of their time and emotional energy to keep open source ways alive and help build a community effort are attacked because they work for a company that needs to be made the villain in the narrative.
Of course Redis is free to copy BSD licensed code that Valkey contributors add to the project [1]. I only wish that the blog post about this advancement in Redis would give some credit, rather than claiming "We also improved the performance of CRC64 calculations" [2].
We can all do better, and engage with one another with mutual respect and admiration for what has been freely given.
[1] https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/13638
[2] https://redis.io/blog/redis-8-0-m03-is-out-even-more-perform...
Do you really want to know?
> I don't understand why so many people think that it's impossible to have open source in your heart while working for a big company in your day job.
Because a big company like Amazon has produced almost no open source work(yes some random collection of repos and 2 PRs here and there is not the same thing) compared to how much it has benefited from open source. (I know I know OSS allows for all that so not claiming anything wrong). But it does show what the company policy must be towards open source (Consume all you can, contribute only when absolutely essential for the company barring exceptional circumstances).
> I don't understand why people who have dedicated a lot of their time and emotional energy to keep open source ways alive and help build a community effort are attacked because they work for a company that needs to be made the villain in the narrative.
Antirez is not attacking anyone above. English is not his first language and he is just putting out some of his thoughts (which people are free to disagree with but those are what he thinks), like how you casually slipped that you didn't get credit for one commit copied from valkey (where the copier is giving due credit in the PR by linking the source PR and the authors inline). So they copied a PR from valkey, and the redis blog post should give lots and lots of credits? If that was the standard, so many of AWS services will spend all their reinvent time giving credits to their source OSS projects.
> Because a big company like Amazon has produced almost no open source work
This may have been true a decade ago, but things are quite different now.
> compared to how much it has benefited from open source.
This is the nature of digital public goods. We are all going to disproportionately benefit from digital public goods relative to what can be produced as new digital public goods. No one will ever, EVER be able to "contribute proportionately" given the endless bounty of software made freely available for all to use.
> If that was the standard, so many of AWS services will spend all their reinvent time giving credits to their source OSS projects.
The observant should notice a change in this over the years. For example, the announcement for Amazon Q Code Transformation [1] acknowledged that OpenRewrite was used under the covers, even though it was an implementation detail that didn't have to be disclosed...
Of course these disclosures and good-faith intentions to engage on open-source community terms under long-established community norms don't always work out the way we hope. [2]
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/upgrade-your-java-applicati...
[2] https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-tools/issues/1443
> No one will ever, EVER be able to "contribute proportionately" given the endless bounty of software made freely available for all to use.
so it sounds like we need a license mechanism that enforces this, fairly, based on potential ability to contribute
idea: a benchmark to give a required level of contributions, maybe a logistic function of revenue generated/company size and time since initial usage
and if you fall beneath it, your license is terminated
carefully calibrated such that a burden is only placed on very large companies
Just make it closed source (or source-available) and give out no-cost licenses how you see fit. You are the author, you decide what to do with your code. This is a well-supported model too, plenty of products are like that.
There are plenty of licenses around, lack of alternatives isn't why people use MIT or Apache.
> I don't understand why so many people think that it's impossible to have open source in your heart while working for a big company in your day job.
The employment contract you signed.
> So, you are practically saying you were using, at Amazon, all the BSD code we provided, provide an important part of the code to us? You see how broken such model was? At least stop defending it.
I'm not defending it, I'm trying to fix it. I want Amazon to contribute back. That's what I spend most of my time doing, but I can't just sit in a meeting and tell people we should give away code. It takes time to convince people that we should collaborate on the core and just compete on what we want to differentiate on. It takes time to convince people that building open-source in a vendor neutral space makes software that is better for everyone.
I hope that makes sense.
Yes, makes sense. Thanks for the reply.
This comment has inspired me to switch to Valkey, thanks.
You have all the rights. Usually I do my best to avoid confrontations of that kind, and to respect the work of others. But I see certain communication patterns that are, for me, too much, and I needed to tell it. I think go on HN, and comment in an aggressive way the work of competitors, during announcements days, is something fundamentally wrong.
On the contrary it has made me appreciate antirez even more not just as a developer but as a true champion of open source who really wants open source to prosper and is willing to voice his opinions whenever required.
> So this is actually another case of the benefits ValKey got for being able to clone Redis, receiving money from the hyper-scalers that just want to maximize their revenues...
I don't think you want to sling that mud, unless Redis switched to being a nonprofit when I wasn't looking.
They aren't really comparable and you know that.
They are and you shouldn't claim bad faith without very good reason.
lmao they absolutely are
That's great news. I never liked the newly sprung up licenses. I understand the background but always felt a burden having to read and understand them, and wonder how they'd hold up in practice. GPL licenses have been around for decades and is something people, including legal teams, know more about.
And when I say "know", I don't mean "like": it could be that this will just make it easier for a particular team to decide that it doesn't want to deal with the AGPL, and they should go find something else, but at least it's clear what it is. As opposed to some BSSXYZWL license that you never heard of, which kind sounds like it's open source but kind of isn't...
I fairly recently dodge a bullet; I rewrote a large chunk of code I was working on using Akka because my idea lent itself fairly well to an actor system. I got it working fine with Akka on my local machine, I was about to make a PR for it at work, and then saw that it was using BUSL instead of Apache, which I had assumed it was using (since a lot of stuff in the Java world seems to use Apache).
I did get my stuff working with Pekko (the Apache fork of Akka), and it did work, but I was so pissed off at the entirety of this that I ended up rewriting the entire thing again using Vert.x, which I double checked the license for before doing more work.
I do understand why Akka feels like they have to use something like BUSL, it's hard to make money as a smaller software company, doubly so for open source software, and I also realize me complaining that "this free product made with free labor isn't free enough for me" is pretty entitled, but fundamentally I really don't think that the BUSL (and its similar licenses) are the right way forward. Whether or not it's fair, stuff like Akka does have competition from stuff that has more OSS-friendly stuff, and fundamentally I'm just going to use those, and if they're not up to snuff I'll augment them myself.
That's a good point, traditional OSS licenses, we can like them or not, but they are "understood".
"Choose boring licenses."
A bit more info from CEO: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/
Sounds like SSPL did not yield the desired outcome.
Glad AGPL is an option now.
It did yield the desired outcome: Google and AWS are no longer using it.
If by desired outcome you mean split the developer community and then chase them away to a newly forked competitor that is now widely used by all the cloud providers and users that prefer open source; complete success!
But I doubt that was the outcome that they hoped for. They created a large and successful competitor that by nature of being a fork does exactly the same thing. It's pretty hard to compete with yourself and the differentiate from your own product.
Honestly, I think Redis Inc. was better off when there was just one code base. AGPL just marginalizes them further. It's not an acceptable license for many corporate legal departments. So, it would necessitate buying a commercial license for such companies. I.e. Fortune 500 companies, public companies, and pretty much anything with a legal department worthy of the name. Note how Redis advertises AGPLv3 as "one" of the available licenses. The whole point of that license is selling commercial licenses.
Valkey is at this point stable and supported and a drop in replacement. It's pretty much the default choice for anyone not interested in buying a commercial license. That genie isn't going back in the bottle with this license choice.
More importantly, Valkey is a pretty active Github project with dozens of contributors in the last month. More than double those in Redis. Those commits aren't going to Redis. And Redis still requires the right to re-license your commits if you try to contribute. That's how they were able to pull this stunt to begin with. I doubt a lot of the Valkey contributors will be moving back to that status quo.
Not sure how the hyperscale clouds switching to a compatible/competing project from which Redis Labs gets no value or contribution is a win.
Very interesting that this is happening at the same time that NATS is going proprietary. Obviously Redis is way more well known, but as someone who has built a bunch on NATS over the last few years, this makes Redis an interesting choice to migrate to again.
Context:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43829008
- https://github.com/cncf/toc/issues/1632
- https://github.com/nats-io/nats-server/issues/6832
I also built a lot on NATS Jetstream, and I'm questioning my decision in light of the threatened license change.
Why? Have you actually ready Synadia's comments where they made it clear that they always intended to maintain the Apache 2 Version by contributing the stuff they build back to the main repo? It just won't be as fast, so they can make some money first which will fund them giving it away.
You said "I also built a lot" Are you making money off those projects or get paid for your services for that use?
apparently synadia is working with the linux foundation now to find a better way forward, and will release a joint statement soon. (CEO mentioned in their slack)
Cool, I'm definitely hoping for a sensible outcome. NATS has been a great tool to work with, and Synadia has also been great to work with.
No thanks, going to stick with Valkey for all future projects.
MinIO also switched to AGPLv3 a while back, and they stated that “the AGPL license requires that all software connecting with MinIO be 100% open source for you/your users not to be in violation of the license.”[^1] Since Redis and MinIO are somewhat similar, (Both can be used to store and retrieve data. Redis uses a custom protocol, and MinIO uses an S3-compatible API.) Should I assume that this statement also applies to Redis?
[^1]: https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/13308#issuecomment-929...
Yeah, min.io really soured AGPL license, for me at least. Because of their stance I've switched away from min.io in our company and avoid everything AGPL like a plague. Having read the license many times and also all discussions around it, I understand that it should be fine to use an AGPL project in a commercial enterprise (without modifications, internally in backend network). However, if authors themselves of such a project believe and say otherwise, I'm really not going to risk anything and definitely not asking lawyers if "my specific use of min.io violates the license or not". I'm just using it as-is over network, internally in my backend deployment. Not modified and not exposed to external world.
I believe the AGPL doesn't actually require this, even though MinIO may think it does. I hope someone gets sued over this some day so we may find out
It would not even make sense. Since you do not even always know what license the thing has you are connecting to. And not even the fsf sees it that way.
Sure, if you're connecting to a service using AGPL, the service operator must offer the source along with a copy of the license.
I'm no lawyer, but unless the software in question makes an exception for the particular API, I wouldn't feel confident.
Or what is the distinction here?
> Should I assume that this statement also applies to Redis?
I dont think it applies to clients using the API at all. It just specifies that the modified source should be offered to clients connecting over the API, but not that the client itself has to be open source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...
AGPL: Uselessly open-source. Anyone who wants to make money with it, even if it's just one of many components in your tech stack, would have to open-source everything. This drives people to adopt the paid versions of the same software over the open-source version, and that's no doubt the point. Adopting the AGPL is a cold, calculated move.
Why I will never try to monetize my own project:
1. To monetize a project, it must first gain wide adoption.
2. To gain wide adoption, it must have a permissive license.
3. To successfully monetize (after gaining wide adoption), it must have a restrictive license.
4. Changing a project's license to be more restrictive will alienate the community and hurt adoption.
I see no solution to this dilemma.
Here's the play: Open source with AGPL, then offer an enterprise license. You get two wins. The OSS community applauds your adoption of an agressive OSS license. Enterprise customers can't use software under AGPL because it risks infecting their IP, so they're forced to buy an enterprise license.
> Enterprise customers can't use software under AGPL because it risks infecting their IP
This is factually untrue. If you want to link an AGPL blob into your app and ship it to customers, sure. In the vastly more common case where you're using a permissive client library[0] to connect to an AGPL server, there's no risk whatsoever.
At most, you might need to make your local changes to that server available to clients if they connect to it directly, as opposed to hosting a cloud SaaS setup where everything is internal to you. However, that's not the worst thing in the world. "Oh no, we improved a Free server our company depends on, and we have to share those improvements so that the person who gave us the server for free can also benefit from them" is pretty hard for me to sympathize with.
This is vastly more business-friendly than the non-FOSS SSPL.
[0]https://github.com/redis-rb/redis-client/blob/master/LICENSE...
s/can't/choose not to/
s/'re forced to//Wait, AGPL is a good license for enterprise, they don’t need to buy unless they want to modify source without releasing, am I wrong about this?
Edit: Doubled checked with gpt, no cases of “infection” yet, there has also been many talks about this license being very good
The goal of free software (noting that "open source" is a watered down version of "free software") is for everyone to share their sohrce code. To that end, licenses that require sharing of source code are used. LGPL says, roughly, you must share the source code of this software to anyone you shared the binary to. GPL is more extensive: anyone you shared the binary or the binary of something built on this software to. AGPL is even more aggressive: anyone you shared it to or gave access to it over a network. And SSPL is currently the most aggressive: you have to share the whole thing you built, not just what's linked with this software.
The more aggressive a license you pick, the more likely a corporation won't want to use it. But that's by design. They're allowed to use it, even commercially - they just have to give the source code back. If the software is useful enough, they will. We should make software useful enough for corporations to consider the be benefits of using it to outweigh the cost of having to share their source code. (Also the more source you make them share, the less likely this is. The Linux kernel succeeded at this.
SSPL is controversial and untested (and goes against the business interests of the OSI so will never be box-tick certified compliant) and likely counterproductive if it means you have to share things like Windows. AGPL is the normal "aggressively free" license. GPL is mostly for those who haven't discovered AGPL yet and MIT is for those who don't agree in the goal of source code freedom to begin with.
SSPL isn't recognized as either open source or free software. I don't think it earns being discussed in the same context.
only because OSI says so. I don't agree with the idea of OSI defining my philosophical positions and technical terms for me, just like I don't agree with the BSD people excluding GPL from the definition of open source.
I'm sympathetic to the OSI not being the only authority. So, have the DFSG, FSF, any BSD, or literally anyone credible endorsed it as Free and/or Open Source?
None of the folks you list have, only other FOSS-adjacent movements like Fair Source etc.
None of them have bothered to evaluate it or have explicitly decided it's not worth evaluating for now. They haven't endorsed it as Proprietary and/or Closed Source either.
And notice the OSI's objection actually makes no sense and could apply to any copyleft license! By the same reasoning, AGPL isn't open source. Yet they say it is.
> None of them have bothered to evaluate it or have explicitly decided it's not worth evaluating for now. They haven't endorsed it as Proprietary and/or Closed Source either.
That's not quite true. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License , Debian did explicitly reject it (in addition to listing OSI and Red Hat likewise), citing https://web.archive.org/web/20240226231216/https://bugs.debi... -
However, the SSPL is clearly not in the sprit of the DFSG, yet alone
complimentary to the Debian's goals of promoting software or user
freedom.
In light of this, the Project does not consider that software licensed
under the SSPL to be suitable for inclusion in the Debian archive.the alternative is/was BSD.
enterprise hates AGPL. AGPL is generally not a serious alternative to BSD/MIT in corpoland, because something something (A)GPL-poisoning.
whether it's true or not doesn't matter. what matters is whether big tech considers AGPL infectious - which they do.
> whether it's true or not doesn't matter
It matters a lot. A company could potentially make choice that saves them a lot of money, so they better base their decisions on accurate information rather than rumours.
(Note also that big tech have different incentives)
> Edit: Doubled checked with gpt, no cases of “infection” yet, there has also been many talks about this license being very good
what? why would you ask an LLM to generate some random text instead of looking up the actual answer?
Hi, it’s the year 2025
> Enterprise customers can't use software under AGPL because it risks infecting their IP
Yeah, this is BS.
If you simply use AGPL software, it doesn't "infect" anything. If you *change* the AGPL software, you have to release the changes. It forces the big clouds to open source their Redis improvements.
For the type of software that Redis is intended for, integration over network is a must. Hence "just using it" isn't a viable option. AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network. If Redis was AGPL when it was released, nobody would touch it.
Most of the readers of HN make their living from closed source software. You know well enough that non-hostile open source is just a market entry strategy and the type of copyright-driven maximally selfish capitalist markets just force open source to be not viable for a single company to thrive. Projects like Linux kernel are exceptional infrastructure projects that external companies support not build businesses just to ship.
> Hence "just using it" isn't a viable option. AGPL isn't LGPL, it infects anything that uses it over a network.
This is completely, factually, unequivocally, incorrect.
You can connect to Redis using their first-party, MIT-licensed client library. You can write proprietary software using that library with no requirement whatsoever to release your software under any particular license (although of course you still have to comply with the MIT license's attribution requirements).
If all software connecting to the AGPL'd service runs internally, you're not obligated to share your local changes to that service. This covers the vast majority of use cases. Using WordPress with a Redis cache? This doesn't affect you.
If you host an AGPL'd version of a Redis server and your customers connect to it from their own networks, then the only obligation you have over the tried-and-true GPL is that you have to share changes you've made to your Redis server with users. If you use Redis packages as-is like almost everyone does, this doesn't affect you.
So literally the only people who have to care about Redis being under the AGPL now are those who don't want to pay Redis for a commercial license, who expose their Redis server to customers, and who've made local changes to their Redis server. Everyone else gets to keep using it like they always had.
It’s amazing how much FUD there is over GPL/AGPL. I’ve seen at least 10 posts on this thread saying you have to open source your commercial software if you use the new Redis. I don’t know how there could be such a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the most common software licenses out there.
Even users of APGL sometimes are clueless about its reach. One example is minio which is AGPL now, and the dev regularly make false statements about the license on their github: https://github.com/minio/minio/issues/13308#issuecomment-929...
That's just embarrassing. Stop that, guy.
I know, right? Corpos have done a great job convincing devs of the “dangers” of copyleft licenses, in favor of permissive licenses that purely coincidentally just happen to benefit those commercial users.
If you USE Redis, you do not have to if you Embed Redis you do. Same with GPL
I think you are thinking of GPL. Many companies are happy to use AGPL licensed software in their stack.
I think you're thinking of the LGPL. The AGPL is basically GPL plus some additional requirements. I could see a company being OK with ~AGPL~ GPL but not ~GPL~ AGPL. I can't imagine the opposite.
Edit: Oops, typoed the license names.
I think you have a typo mixing up AGPL and GPL. I agree that it would be hard to imagine a company being okay with the AGPL but not the GPL. On the off-chance that it isn't a typo, could you explain why a company might be okay with AGPL but not GPL?
Oops, you're right. Yes. I could see them approving the GPL but not the AGPL. I can't imagine any company approving the AGPL but not the GPL.
After what Mullenweg has pulled, in the era of Blogging CEOs I have to be cynical.
Valkey.
Heh! While I appreciate what you're saying, I see this as the opposite of WordPress. It's basically a CEO saying oops, we messed up, let's fix this, which is fundamentally different than doubling down and ending up in court.
Oh, I agree... I want to be wrong
I hope you are, too. Don't mistake my optimism for complete confidence.
antirez is not the CEO of Redis.
Comment was deleted :(
Sorry, you're right. ICs, CTOs, and CEOs. Oh my. Pardon me for not subscribing to another accountability shell game. I again call Mullenweg.
/s in case I haven't piled it on thick enough to make an impact.
Read the last link of TFA [0], the last time this came up [1] (noting the timespan), and extrapolate as necessary.
0: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/ (CEO)
1: https://redis.io/blog/redis-license-bsd-will-remain-bsd/ (CTO)
Or don't, I don't care. Point/fix has been made.
I'm not really sure what your point is. Salvatore Sanfilippo (aka antirez and the author of this blog post) has never been the CTO or CEO of Redis Ltd. He didn't start it and only briefly worked there (relative to how long it has been around as a company).
antirez isn't the focus of my ire, stop. They simply have the misfortune of proximity. The actual CTO told us 'always BSD'. Now Salvatore is telling us it didn't totally expire. Great!
Except... the CEO forgot. Here's a lesson about AGPL and the Big Bad Cloud. Give me a break or I'll take one.
At risk of confusing things further: YouTube is leaking, is kind of my point. Apologies again for not exhaustively phrasing my criticism. s/ging CEOs/gers/; better?
One last try: I'm happy for the evangelism, I'm less happy about the repeat license discussion. The blogs from all of the employees add a frustrating element. It's a trend now spanning businesses.
With what Mullenweg did, another conveniently forgetful CEO, I'm (admittedly, excessively) cynical.
How you thought I was saying antirez is the CEO is utterly baffling. I have a hard time thinking this is genuine, but rather, a troll. Entirely non-sequitur/failure of compound reasoning.
~ $ curl -s 'https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=fastball'
[...]
I used to argue on the internet too much.<p>Co-founder and tinkerer at supernotes.app
Some of these open source licenses are somewhat flawed when it comes to building a business on things that are "free".
Wouldn't it be possible to add a clause to some of these licenses that if you are using open source software and generate a certain amount of revenue from it, something has to be given back to the project.
I totally understand that the software is meant to be free but isn't there a balance here, where at some point it must be enforced that some the money it generates in a business, must flow back to its contributors/project ?
I have worked plenty of places where Redis was a thing that served at least some backbone for success for a business. Those places could pay a fee for generating revenue based on free software ?
Does it make sense ?
IMO for that to make sense the license would have to be infectious and even then you run into the anything but trivial and gameable issue of splitting royalties among the tree of dependencies. Redis itself uses other open source libraries and so on. It's a tricky problem but it shouldn't stop us from trying, any amount of no strings attached funding for open source is better than what we have today. Personally I'd like to see it solved by diverting some amount of tax payer money to open source project maintainers, via some hopefully non conflicted government agency that ascertains what projects are more funding worthy than others.
Yes, and it's called proprietary software which is free for non-commercial use and companies under a certain size. Docker Desktop uses this license.
Congrats antirez! I'm sure this was a huge effort internally, and I hope the Redis team can be successful releasing software under SSPL+AGPL.
So with redis being AGPL, who counts as a user?
If you have a webapp that uses redis on the backend for a task queue, do the users of the webapp count as users of redis, and you then have to provide source to redis? Is there a chance that you might have to release your apps code to be compliant?
I just read the AGPL and the FAQs and it's not entirely clear to me either.
Probably why many companies find AGPL toxic.
No. Users of Redis are the ones connecting to it. Furthermore, the Redis client library that you link into your program is MIT licensed. Unless you embed Redis directly into your app, you'd never have to release your own code to use it.
This is my number one objection to the AGPL. Still way better than the SSPL or BUSL, but I will stick with valley for now.
As noted by others, this is irrelevant unless Redis actually uses AGPL as the primary license for the software (that is, in an inbound=outbound fashion). https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2014/jun/09/do-not-need-cla/
Nah, as much as I loved the original Redis, they dropped the ball with the license change. To me it looks like they realized way too late. There was a window for them to turn back, but now it looks like they are bleeding some way or another and just trying to recuperate. In the meantime, other drop-in solutions took over.
Can't say that I feel sorry for them though.
I would love to see Amazon offer a Redis service, comply with the AGPLv3 instead of using the other Redis licensing options and do revenue sharing to incentivise more commercial source-available projects to go that route.
Microsoft does this.
Interesting, is there any more public info about this? If not, have you/Redis considered blogging about it?
Not seen any mention of KeyDB... Maybe I miss something obvious, but it solved my small use case that would stretch to the other side of Redis pay wall. I'm very happy with KeyDB.
- 8.0 - Tri-licensed under RSALv2/SSPLv1/AGPLv3
- 7.4 - Dual licensed under RSALv2/SSPLv1
- 7.2 and earlier - 3BSD
Great to see this. 12 years ago I wrote https://github.com/rcarmo/miniredis during a very slow weekend where I both wanted to get a feel for the internals of how Redis worked and have a little PubSub server I could call my own.
I spent the entire weekend poring over the C code and found it some of the most beautiful C I'd ever read (ever since the heady years of SunOS), and now I feel I should at least go and update miniredis to asyncio/Python 3--for kicks...
Do it. I'm thinking of making one for node.
Already started. python3 branch. Claude removed all my nice idiomatic conditional expressions, but the (few) tests I have for the server already pass, and the aioserver is coming next :)
I am bit confused by the comments here. Sure, it remains to be seen whether Redis Ltd. can be trusted again, but cannot we just be a happy for a bit that we (again) have a good software under a free license?
I'm happy to see the news after having a chance to look at sources more closely (for unrelated reasons). The Redis geohash/gis related implementation is such a pleasure to read.
Sure, but the damage is done already, and it's AGPL too.
I can understand problems with SSPL license, but i cannot understand the problems with AGPL. If you use software for your SAAS service for free, and made changes in it, you should share the changes with others. Is free software, not a gift for your business.
Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing? Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project. Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?
> Again? Didn’t it go from BSD to some infectious copyleft thing?
They went to SSPL, which isn't open source. (Whether it's copyleft is an interesting exercise left to the reader. I genuinely don't know, I'd have to stare at definitions for a bit to form an opinion.)
> Doesn’t seem “open source again” to me if we can’t use it in private work projects without being forced to open source our project.
Er, I'm not a lawyer, but why wouldn't you be able to use it in a private work? AFAIK the viral parts of AGPL/GPL only say you have to share source with users of the software; if your only user is you then it's immaterial.
> Isn’t AGPL even WORSE than what they switched from? Wouldn’t “open source again” imply going back to BSD?
Worse/better is somewhat subjective, but AGPL is a (Free and) Open Source license. It was open source (BSD), then it wasn't (SSPL), then it was open source (AGPL).
Engineering/ Designing applications with Apache Foundation's software's might be the first option, less pain. It is extremely stressful to change the base architecture. As, AGPL threatening commercial apps to open source their code. It is unfair changing the license after getting popular.
Similar move to Elasticsearch, tacking on AGPL with their existing source available licenses. [1]
The products (commercialized open source) that are often chosen by and championed by developers as opposed to executives see the harm that a bait and switch has on their popularity. With their competitors being more permissive, I don't see many devs moving back unless Valkey loses significant feature parity.
[1] https://ir.elastic.co/news/news-details/2024/Elastic-Announc...
I ask this as a scrub end user. What are the implications of forking when it comes to a Redis? Specifically, what I am wondering about whether forks like valkey which are worked on by competent programmers[1] continue to be good choices or does Redis Inc. having founded redis give it a distict advantage?
[1] I am assuming this because valkey comes under the Linux Foundation umbrella.
I wonder whether they did deals with AWS and Google behinds the scenes. Something like "you poured money into Valkey, how about you give that kind of money to us instead and we'll switch to AGPL and you can stop confusing two customers with two practically identical but differently priced options". Could that ever work? (I have no idea)
Google is well known for having banned AGPL (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty...).
Oh nice! Smart move then. Makes me wonder why they went with SSPL in the first place.
In time, I built this - https://github.com/hsnice16/golang_learning/tree/main/One2N/...
Great news antirez, well done!
During this time I believe a lot of alternatives (mostly protocol compatible to redis so they would be drop in replacements) came into light.
Has there been a consensus on one? Is there a winner?
I love redis and will probably keep using it. Just curious.
Valkey has replaced redis in a few distros
Also PaaS like Heroku adopted Valkey as a drop-in replacement for Redis.
It is a fork of the latest oss release right? I thought some completely new implementations were introduced.
It's not just a fork, there have been two releases on Valkey that improved performance and memory efficiency. There is a lie that Redis likes to spread that only their own employees were working on the core engine at the time of the fork, but most of the engineers on Valkey came directly from having worked on Redis OSS. A recent example is we modernized the hash table a bit: https://valkey.io/blog/new-hash-table/.
Nobody wants to deny that Redis got from contribution from external developers. But it is fundamentally true that for like 8 years almost every substantial contribution was created by people working for Redis, and that later we got something that was still a small part compared to the total.
There are the commit histories, the GitHub contribution graphs. Everything is public. The current code base was written for the majority by a few single folks, for another small amount of the sum of all random people in the community, for a smaller part by people that now work at ValKey.
this lwn article supports the argument that many cloud providers contributed back to Redis: https://lwn.net/Articles/966631
> It is also hard to reconcile the claims that cloud providers do not contribute with the actual commits to the Redis repository. A quick examination of the commits since the 7.0.0 release using gitdm shows 967 commits over that time period:
Top changeset contributions by employer
(Unknown) 331 34.2%
Tencent 240 24.8%
Redis 189 19.5%
Alibaba 65 6.7%
Huawei 50 5.2%
Amazon.com 50 5.2%
Bytedance 19 2.0%
NetEase 13 1.3%
If you go into the GitHub of any of the forks, and check the contribution page, you will see this data is not correct. Probably all my commits are into this "unknown", since I push with @gmail.com account without being part of any organization for most of the time.
This is likely some partial data of some specific fork or alike.
The LWN article is examining the 976 commits made after the 7.0.0 release. I don't think you had any commits during that time?
As is typical for software projects, early authors will be disproportionately represented in revision histories. I am still the #4 contributor to the Anaconda installer [1] originally used by Red Hat Linux, then RHEL, then Fedora, and others, despite not contributing to the code base for two decades.
[1] https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/graphs/contributors
They can seriously screw themselves with the rugpull they made. I reported so many bugs and helped diagnose them in the sentinel module. Seriously fuck them.
Hashtag #ThankYouValkey?
I am starting a new web app project and I wanted an in-memory store for session data. I just defaulted to Redis, literally yesterday doing the `npm install`.
I mean, I remembered the whole Valkey saga after the license switch. I guess I'm just not as ideological as some here? I just thought "I need a fast in memory object store" and went with Redis as my default. I treat it like an appliance within my infrastructure.
I also vaguely recall antirez going back to Redis (the company) during the AI boom to work on vector extensions to Redis. I believe he is a big part of why Redis is such a rock-solid piece of tech. I am more confident in this product with him influencing the trajectory.
I also have the decision on license in the back of my mind. As I said, I am not an OSS zealot, but I do like the idea of an OSS license that has some protection against someone completely ripping off the code with no recourse. AGPL might be a decent compromise, especially with a dual license.
AGPL + selling under other licenses seems to be the way
Literally the day after I started working on moving to Valkey... That's how it goes.
Why the change yesterday? Were there developments happening in Valkey that made you feel like a switch would be worthwhile?
Note AGPL license is in completely different class compared to BSD. Where BSD was level playing field allowing anyone to do commercial derivatives, now only Redis can do it.
I also question whenever this decision comes from the pure change of heart rather than threat of Valkey... and if so what else should we expect in the future
From BSD clause to AGPL, I see it as a huge win!
I still don't understand what Redis does or why we need it as web devs...
Doesn't AGPL give you LESS rights? (fewer?)
AGPL is pretty much a non-starter for any commercial development.
The RSALv2 let you use Redis, unless you were a service provider. Now, you can't use it for anything (EVERYTHING is accessed over a network now) without sharing your source.
So, before everyone but amazon could use it for commercial purposes, now no one can.
Unless you modify Redis, what do you want to share? You don't have to share any of your server code or anything. No reason to be so dramatic. :)
You have to make the choice about sharing at the start. If you use AGPL and later decide to make changes, you'll have to share. So most don't want to risk it.
But more important, AGPL software is banned at many large corporations. It's simply not an option.
1) you can still use it under RSAL.
2) you only have to share what you change. You don’t have to change it to provide it as a service, but if you do, you have to share the code. That doesn’t seem particularly harsh and certainly doesn’t prevent providing it commercially.
While I applaud the effort to repair developer trust, do note that many organizations prohibit the use of AGPL.
Linked below is Google's own stance on why AGPL is banned:
https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
My personal opinion: we shouldn't let Google's bad policy poison our brains. The people who wrote that policy had their reasons for taking this position. It might have been the right thing for Google at the time the policy was written.
That doesn't mean it's the right position for you, or for every situation. Many organizations with a higher levels of maturity in open source matters will take a more nuanced approach when it comes to AGPLv3 licensed software.
That's the license working as intended, isn't it?
So a hyperscaler bans the AGPL? Shocking. Seems to be working as intended.
Their loss, at some point…
I'm quite fed up with this GAFAM FUD against the AGPL and the GPLv3.
Notably, Redis is about to sue Dragonfly for deliberate trademark confusion.
I think a project has to be Linux or Postgres big to really operate as open source. Why? Because cloud providers can easily sell your product and contribute nothing back. So, for anything < Postgres in size you need to create a new license to allow you to run a managed service. The problem is, with something like AGPL, companies that aren't selling your stuff (just using it), now need to release their stuff as AGPL as well. With so many things using Redis, it seems that millions of companies will now be in violation of the license agreement upon a given update in the future.
Personally, I think it is better just to call a spade a spade and release things with commercial licenses. Let all companies with < 1T market cap use your stuff for free. Companies that are making money will want a managed service or support anyway. Companies that want to host your stuff in their environment fall into the > $1T category.
The above is a bit of a strawman but what we really want is for valuable projects to continue to exist.
What about looking at it the other way around, neither Linux nor PostgreSQL is a commercial product, never were and never will be. Many people create commercial products on top of them, and that's OK, it's allowed by the license. Even Redis started as a fully open source project. But then it was sold to a company, and company cares more about making money than taking care of open source product. If you are a small company, and want to create an open source product, that's only free for personal use, just say so up front. Don't try to pretend the product is something else. It's really not about size, it's about motivation, and the motivation of a company is always making money in the first place.
Thanks, maybe this will be exemplary behavior for Elastic and Mongo.
Wow I chose to start using redis in the right week :)
they realize that they dont have a "moat" and if entire industry try hard enough to replace them then its over for them
Does anyone use redis any more?
I guess so
yeah
cool, does this means it works on Windows now?
AW YEEAH!
No need to trust them. Use it and if the license changes fork it again. Where is the problem?
The post is a bit misleading as the agpl is a licensing option but not the license.
It’s a good trade-off though. Grafana does the same and they’re doing just fine.
I hope redis gets to live a long life now that’s more open than ever (essentially it’s free software now) :)
After the redis troubles I hope more people start to realise that the GPL license is the way really, and that other licenses (like the BSD that Redis used to use) are really just too risky.
was honestly waiting for something like this, but that trust hit doesn't really fade for me - you think companies ever recover from stuff like this or do folks just move on for good?
yeah no thanks
Is it a business decision right ?
great news
Redis should step up and fund an independent foundation now and encourage Valkey to contribute where relevant.
Some code under a 3 clause BSD and some under AGPLv3 could be interesting.
Why? They can already just copy the code they want from Valkey, since Valkey is 3 clause BSD...
But maybe Valkey should switch to GPLv3 instead to correct this imbalance.
I am not sure what that would achieve? Combining programs under GPLv3 and AGPLv3 is possible (the resulting work is under AGPLv3).
The imbalance I think _msw_ refers to is the fact that Valkey couldn't both take code from a GPL-licenced Redis and keep its license.
So either they relicense, or they can't take code from Redis but Redis can take code from Valkey.
I see, I misunderstood that. I have read it as an attempt to prevent redis taking the code from valkey.
However, if the intention was the other way (to allow valkey to take code from redis), valkey should just go for AGPL as well, there is little reason to pick GPL if the code sharing would be the motivation for the license change.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
In theory, one would not be able to offer a combined program under other licenses (in particular, RSALv2 and SSPLv1), as those licenses have conflicts with GPL obligations.
Direct contributions to the Redis project avoid this issue via a separate Contributor License Agreement. It would only mean that Redis developers could not unilaterally copy code from Valkey.
I'm not saying that the Valkey community should do this. Personally, I think it's better off as a BSD-3 licensed project, with the community fulfilling the promise made by others that it would always be that way.
The increased use of AGPL is a good sign. Hopefully more people start to realise copyleft licences are what is good for us (people, communities). Permissive licences are for big corporations.
Looking at the comments it's amazing how much damage Ballmer/Microsoft did to free software with their "infection" rhetoric. Amazing that people would choose something that's good for Microsoft. Hint: if Microsoft likes something then you (a person) almost certainly want the complete opposite.
Cloud vendors have been strip-mining open source for years, yet judging by user and contributor sentiment on forums such as HN, and the lack of OSI-approved licensing innovation, there’s been no meaningful progress toward a solution. If anything, I get the feeling that the community is effectively more on the side of cloud vendors than on the side of authors. It seems the community at large doesn't care about authors' businesses suffering. Meanwhile, they largely don't oppose cloud vendors forking the latest open source version either.
AGPL protects better against cloud strip-mining than most opens source licenses, but doesn't solve the fundamental problem of big cloud vendors easily outcompeting authors' businesses. AGPL only compels source sharing when the software is modified and offered over a network. But cloud providers can sidestep that by hosting the unmodified version. They excel at operations at scale and sales. Most open source consumers seem to care more about benefiting from this than about the authors' struggles.
Fair source licenses — such as SSPL and Elastic License — while not OSI-compliant, are designed thoughtfully to balance authors' business and user needs, and don’t impact the vast majority of users. They often only restrict cloud-scale commercial hosting, not self-hosting or local use. Yet they trigger disproportionate outrage.
This is part of a broader problem: the community’s lack of empathy for authors. It is unsustainable. Open source maintainer burnout has been going on for a long time now. The "indie" open source author community is aging. Meanwhile, many big open source projects come from large coporations who use open source as a loss leader.
My impression is that:
1. the community at large is too stuck in ideological purity, in an age where the original FOSS ideology is a bad fit. Permissive licenses made sense when open source was a grassroots movement fighting for adoption — not when it’s powering trillion-dollar clouds.
2. People prioritize their own short-term interests too much.
Companies are doing open source because of the momentum we built over the past few decades. This momentum is being eroded by maintainer burnout, fragmented ecosystems, and declining trust between authors and users. Yet the open source consumer and authorities such as FSF and OSI effectively neglect indie author health. This is going to collapse one day.
If we want open source to survive as more than just free labor for cloud providers, we need a new movement—one that defends both user freedom and author sustainability.
amen
I'm always grateful for open source code, but on AGPL I can only quote the lawyer Kyle Mitchell:
"Inebriated aliens might as well have beamed it down from space as a kind of practical joke..."
"It’s not just hard for lawyers, who have the legal picture and can parse the whole license very carefully without passing out...It’s also hard for hackers, even those familiar with free software lore, who lack the legal side of the picture and a sense of what other ways things might have been said. Imagine how people who don’t know software, law, legal drafting, software architecture, hacker culture, or the self-styled 'philosophical' musings of one Richard M. Stallman feel."
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2021/01/24/Reading-AGPL
As Mitchell implies folks who want network copyleft should look into the more straightforward OSL3, IMO.
But it's something, and it's not my call to make because I didn't write the code, so properly I can only be grateful.
maybe if you are a lawyer, and if you are trying to get around the license somehow, or of you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging, but as a FOSS user and developer, it is pretty straightforward: the software runs on a server, you connect to it, you get access to the source that is running on the server. if you believe in the spirit of Free Software then there is no question what you should do.
if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that.
also, consider that the AGPL is trying to be compatible to the GPL. that forces it to be more complicated. the OSL doesn't have that problem, and the OSL is also not compatible with the GPL, which is only ok if you don't want to integrate any other GPL software. although i suppose since the GPL doesn't require distribution on network access, this may not be an issue. but i don't know, i am not a lawyer. and so to be sure, i'll prefer the AGPL.
> if you are fussing about the details which code you need to share and which not then you are not following the spirit of Free Software. it's as simple as that.
Kyle’s point is pretty clear: it’s really hard to tell what agpl actually requires. So it’s a bad, unclear license whatever your position is - whether you think your code should virally make everything that links it open source, or if you expressly don’t want that and only want the library itself network copyleft. What does agpl actually require? Even lawyers are stumped.
but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details. the details only matter for those who are not into FOSS and are forced to comply with the license without having the desire to do so.
one could argue that a complicated license reduces the attraction of my software, but again, if i am not out to become popular, i would not care about that. and for my paying customers they should not care either, because they are still getting more than they would from proprietary software, or they are paying me to get an exception.
so if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck. it's not my job to accommodate that.
> but my point is that if i just share everything, as a FOSS enthusiast is wont to do, then i don't need to worry about the details.
That’s only true if you also don’t care what other people are required to do with your code. People who want copyleft enforced for their contributions will care if the license actually enforces it, and how.
> if the license for my software is to complicated for you, tough luck
Sure, fine. My whole point in the last comment is that it’s complicated for the /creator/. Wasn’t talking about the user. A badly written license cuts both ways.
but it isn't complicated for me as creator. i just share the whole thing.
and the difficulty to enforce i already addressed in my first comment: if you have to defend the license against an abuser then the AGPL is challenging. so i do accept that.
This is the first time I read about OSL3 (https://opensource.org/license/osl-3-0-php).
I'm bad at licenses, and I admit I don't completely get it. At first glance, it seems like a simpler more readable license that tries to accomplish something similar to AGPL. I think the "license terminates when you sue me for patent infringement" clause is nifty.
But it says that an "external deployment" counts as "distribution" (ok, fair), which means you must OSL-license your changes too (ok, fair too).
But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.
how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back
it doesn't. but neither does the AGPL. the only reason companies avoid the AGPL is because the AGPL stipulates that anything that the software is integrated with must be distributed as well. they are avoiding the GPL for the same reason. i don't know if the OSL does that too. if it doesn't then it would be less protective than the AGPL.
the AGPL works to prevent competition because companies are scared of it, but that was not its intention. none of the GPL licenses are intended to prevent competition without giving back.
and that is the real problem that redis and other companies are facing: how can we share source with our users without allowing well funded competitors to eat our lunch.
there are several experimental licenses that are trying to address that problem, among others, FUTO is working on that, as is bruce perens. but so far no clear choice has emerged. and unfortunately many see the idea of limiting competition as against the spirit of FOSS. personally, i think that needs to change.
> But how does that in practice prevent AWS and GCP from cloud-hosting your software without giving back? Seems to me that if Redis went OSL3, GCP could host it fine so long as they'd OSL3-distribute any changes they made.
What is your definition of “giving back?” To me that means open sourcing your changes, which as you note is what the license requires.
Yeah sorry, stupid choice of words given the subject. I meant paying them for the privilege somehow, which has been Redis (the company)'s goal this whole time. GP suggests OSL3 solves this and I'm trying to figure out how.
Oh I see. IANAL but if the plan with agpl is to sell commercial versions for people who don’t want to worry about FOSS licensing/infection then it may be a great license for that precisely because of the lack of clarity. You can do similar with OSL - “pay us to get it under a different license where you can make a closed derivative work” - but OSL clearly allows linking (according to its author) without the mere linking requiring opening the thing that links it so it may be strictly worse for Redis.
I was merely saying OSL is better than agpl as a license (imo). It’s very clear. But lack of clarity can have strategic value.
If you care about open source, and would like Llama 3 to also be open source (instead of the current license which, like Redis' SSPL, isn't, depite Meta saying it is), you might want to add your vote to:
Good luck to them, everyone is moving to Valkey, especially with its major backing and already better performance.
stop clowning around already
LMAAOO
This is disappointing. The AGPL is a nonfree (and nonsensical) license.
The fact that the FSF wants a EULA but can’t have a EULA without violating Freedom 0 doesn’t make the AGPL suddenly logically sound.
marcan has written about it in more detail than I care to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019
Stop using the AGPL. It violates the basic principles of free software.
The ability to run a SaaS company with free software is a feature, not a bug.
You can run a SaaS company with AGPL-licensed software, no problem.
What do you think is nonfree about AGPL?
Not a differentiated one.
The AGPL, in its quest to be a EULA, violates free software Freedom 0 ("The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose").
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
The AGPL literally demands specific functionality be present in the software that cannot be removed without breaking the license. The anticapitalist FSF zealots got so in love with the idea of closing what they call "the ASP loophole" that they wrote themselves a EULA.
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose
I can do this with AGPL software just fine. Which purposes are not allowed under AGPL?
You are not allowed to modify an AGPL program without adding a mandatory feature to provide the currently-running source code to a remote network user of the software. You are also not allowed to remove that functionality. It's a clear violation of freedom 0.
I suggest that you read the actual text of the AGPL. It's madness. They wanted a EULA so badly.
> You are not allowed to modify an AGPL program without adding a mandatory feature to provide the currently-running source code to a remote network user of the software
That's not true. You only need to provide the modified source code somewhere.
You might want to read it again :-) It seems like you have a wrong idea of what the AGPL does.
edit: I see an immediate downvote. If whoever did this thinks I'm wrong, please share the exact AGPL excerpt that mandates actually building a feature to provide the source code currently in use in the network program itself.
The problematic clause is this one:
> if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source
The application does not have to directly provide its own exact source code, but it must advertise where to find it.
And it's quite unclear what exactly counts here. For a web application it's somewhat obvious how one might do that (although how many AGPL applications are prepared for it as a simple config option vs require you to do additional patching to add it), but for other applications its not.
E.g. you interact with redis over a custom protocol thats self-described as being human-readable. Does that mean I need to inject the offer there somewhere? What if it is a much more opaque protocol? If you ask 5 lawyers, how many opinions on that do you get?
Fair enough! Thanks for the interesting comment.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
AGPL is cancer. Valkey already exists, people already switched, it's already landed in a bunch of distros. I don't see anyone moving back, especially when Valkey has some big corporate support.
And for my personal usage, Rails 8 has moved Redis functionality into the database by default, which works fine.
RMS was enough of a genius to understand the potential of open source software, and basically gave us, with GPL and his evangelism (and his code! plenty of it), and the free software movement, the software world we are living now. AGPL reflects the fact that he understood before everybody else that something was happening with software as a service.
I love the BSD license, but now who says that AGPL is a cancer is making a big favor to the few huge companies that want to abuse the original dream that spawned modern and open software. Times changes, the best license to use change with times.
RMS was not convinced that the Affero clause was a good idea as a general rule, though he approved the Affero-sponsored fork of the GPL that created AGPLv1. Hence, he did not support the addition of network copyleft obligations in GPLv3 during its drafting.
RMS has long expressed concerns about "Service as a Software Substitute" [1], and I think he hesitated to endorse the AGPL because it would conflict with his philosophy on the dangers of "Service as a Software Substitute".
Henry Poole should be given credit for raising the concern; Bradley M. Kuhn and Eben Moglen should be given the credit for advancing the license to address the concern.
It took a long time for the Free Software Foundation to accept Affero versions of the GPL under their stewardship with the release of AGPLv3.
So, perhaps he did understand before many people that services posed some challenges for his social movement. But it's my belief that he favored self-reliance and maximum "freedom" by running computer programs on hardware you own yourself as the remedy, rather than extending copyleft obligations to reach over the network.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
Without AGPL, you still get SaaSS, but it's GPL so you don't get any source code. The GPL should have had the Affero provision to meet Stallman's wants. Otherwise companies would obviously just work around the license by using SaaSS.
AGPL is cancer[0] in exactly the same way GPL is cancer, in that it's intentionally designed to *BE* cancer (or, congenital at least).
If you modify GPL code you are expected to open source the changes, AGPL adapts that to the networked world, if you modify AGPL code to serve something, you should open source those changes too, otherwise you're violating the original spirit of GPL which was designed in a time that was not as perpetually internet (and SaaS) driven as today.
If you want a true free license, BSD or MIT have you covered, but then you shouldn't expect corporations to give back.
A good example of what happens if companies don't give back is Linux VS the various BSD's. BSD is a lot more popular in appliances than you might otherwise believe but the popularity is starting to wane as Linux (despite GPL) has improved so much with companies giving back that the "free license" BSD is no longer being seen as good enough in some cases. People do not tend to give back to the BSD's.
[0]: https://blog.jamesbayley.com/2014/01/17/gpl-living-with-canc...
> AGPL is cancer.
Good, you can think it is cancer and stay away from it. You don't like it, don't use it. It's like those bright colored poisonous frogs from the Amazon. That's better than some newly made up license that's different than anything else, and you have to wonder how it would hold up in practice.
I agree it's better than their previous made up license. It won't win back everyone who left though. The ship has sailed. They should have gone GPL.
> Rails 8 has moved Redis functionality into the database by default, which works fine.
Databases could always do what redis did. Redis doesn't bring functionality to the table, it brings speed. If database caching, pub/sub, and streams are good enough for your use case, there was never a reason to pay for an extra instance just to stand up redis.
Extra instance and developer overhead.
AGPL isn’t cancer. It’s a license that exists to solve a particular problem: the proliferation of free software in a world of network services.
If you don’t like it, don’t use AGPLv3 software. Those of us who do like it will keep writing AGPLv3 software.
Mesmerizing number of views. I must admin I refreshed the page multiple times to see the count increase. If I increased the view count several times, I must admin I did not read the article multiple times.
Kati Perri Hot Cold.
,,for companies rooted in open source, it has posed a fundamental challenge: how do you keep innovating and investing in OSS projects when cloud providers reap the profits and control the infrastructure without proportional contributions back to the projects that they exploit?''
I don't see any exploitation happening. As DHH said, the main reason engineers open source their work is to give a gift to the world.
Open source is a gift to everyone (including Jeffrey Bezos); free software is a sharing economy. The difference is whether the sharing is reciprocal. With open source it's a one way gift from you to Jeffrey. He could have paid you for that. At the very least you can make him pay with reciprocal sharing.
I think you are not describing the difference between open source and free software but the difference between copyleft and permissive license.
Open source and free software licenses are basically the same (there are a few exceptions). For me, the difference is the focus. Free software cares about user freedom first.
User freedom means not giving someone else the freedom to take away user freedom though, which is what doormat licenses (can we call them cuck licenses or is that too far for HN?) do.
> User freedom means not giving someone else the freedom to take away user freedom though
This sentence does a shortcut that's worth expanding on, because it can give the impression that permissive licenses don't respect user rights, and because it doesn't cleanly apply to every situations.
User freedom is full with a permissive license. If I get software under MIT, my freedom is fully respected.
But it is true that forcing downstream developers to respect the freedom of their users through copyleft licenses is one of the strategies to improve user freedom overall (Personally, that's why I prefer the (A)GPL - I'm not keen on helping).
There still are some situations where you might be better off using a more permissive license, when your code is small enough or would strongly benefit from the network effect, for instance if it's a codec, or if there already are alternatives that proprietary software can use [1,2].
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
That is true. I'm talking general purpose. If you're putting something you made on the internet, and there's a good chance it's useful to someone, I recommend AGPL unless you have a specific argument against it. Also notice that it's easier to grant more permission than to take it away.
I completely agree with you there.
This will be very relevant when Valkey decides to go closed source.
It's better than the previous state of course, but it would have been even better if the previous license change didn't happen.
As the french people say: fool me once, shame on you...
Valkey is a Linux Foundation project. Talking about license changes is just pure irrational FUD.
fool me can't get fooled again
But in seriousness, the chances of valkey going closed source are low. It's run by Linux Foundation. It would be like suggesting that Node.js might go closed source...
They were obviously making a tongue in cheek comment instead of seriously suggesting Valkey may go proprietary.
And it was so absurd that it didn't land with me, even though most of the time I notice these sorts of things. Ah well.
I'm guessing valkey will be dead now?
why? The investment into it has already been done, and quite a few places will be happier with its license still. I think enough has happened/too much time passed that its not a given everyone will just quietly move back to Redis.
Flagged for misleading headline. SSPL is open source. It's just not the open source you want.
It meets all the criteria and the only difference from AGPL is how much source code you have to release and when - which is also the difference between GPL and AGPL. It has problems, but being closed source isn't one of them.
The OSI will never certify it, of course, because that would go against the business interests of the OSI members. The OSI is a consortium of companies who receive free labour from permissively licensed projects and to a lesser extent GPL projects, and it would like that to continue, which it cannot in practice under SSPL. The OSI article linked in a reply does not make a single point against the open-sourceness of the SSPL, and essentially just says they don't like it, and that some companies won't be able to comply, which is true of every free software license.
The FSF, Debian, etc haven't decided one way or another because it's not a very widespread license and they can just use valkey instead of wasting the effort.
This is not a widely accepted claim. I do not see SSPL as open source, and neither do OSI[0] or FSF[1] or Debian[2].
[0]https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l...
We need to stop taking the OSI or FSF's positions on anything as particularly valuable.
The OSI is captured entirely by corporate sponsors. Amazon was paying a full-time salary a year to the OSI when the SSPL issue happened, the OSI had no ability to take a moral pro-labor stance without crippling their own operations. They still do not meaningfully answer to individual users: The OSI recently refused to disclose who won their board election and installed their preferred candidates.
And it will be inherently unethical to even consider the position of the FSF as long as it lacks the moral fortitude to permanently punt RMS from the board.
If the OSI wasn't owned by corporate interests, and had rightfully declared SSPL as a copyleft license... nobody would argue it isn't. The problem is we've let an extremely problematic organization "define" something in a way that does not serve our interests.
Many people came to the same conclusion about SSPL just by reading it when it was released, before any OSI position on it.
Who, that wasn't using motivated reasoning or repeating something they heard from OSI or Amazon?
The OSI and FSF make sense by prohibiting stuff like the sspl. Open source should express freedom and by putting restrictions on certain users no matter how evil they are wont express freedom at all
You seem to be opposed to software freedom. The SSPL is a viral copyleft open source license, it merely requires users to open source things. The SSPL is only restrictive in the same way as the GPL is, it requires granting users software freedom.
The sspl is basically hostile to a certain user base, one could say it’s rassist. And that’s against the spirit of the fsf.
Racist against billionaires? C'mon.
Also, you're wrong. The FSF's position is basically that software that is non-free is immoral, so any license which forces additional software to be released with a free license is inherently moral. A very copyleft license like the SSPL should be the peak of the FSF's goals.
As said no. A license should not discriminate not even against billionaires. Either you start with x and keep it that way or you are not better than the billionaires. Bait and switch is even worse than being a asshole
So copyleft licenses are out?
The OSI wrote some nonsense that implies copyleft licenses cannot be open source, and the FSF hasn't yet taken any position at all.
Which part of their explanation for rejecting it do you specifically disagree with?
The entire claim of https://opensource.org/blog/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... holds down to "the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor" and the SSPL does not prohibit the use of software in any field of endeavor.
The OSI then strays into a lot of nonsense that demonstrates just how bought and paid for they are, such as "the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good", like apparently... being used by a company which does not open source it's platform and treats its employees so poorly they have to pee in bottles. And of course, they immediately claim that "now... contributions are embedded in a proprietary product" because of course, the OSI believes they own the term and definition of open source, and that everything they don't agree with is inherently "proprietary".
And then of course, they suggest "relicensing is not evidence of any failure of the open source licensing model" even though it is very clear that businesses being unable to survive producing open source is kinda big flaw in the goal of promoting the public software commons. (Taking it a step further, if the FSF argues free software is a moral imperative, not fixing this is outright immoral.)
I think your entire comment can be reduced to you thinking that some limited subset of discrimination based on usage is acceptable, being justified by the market dynamics. That's a fine viewpoint but it simply isn't the accepted definition of "open source". You might not have been aware of that, or you might think that we'd all be better off if that wasn't the case, but those things simply don't change the reality that there is, in fact, a widely understood definition for the term.
The reason people are such sticklers about that particular definition is because the term carries a lot of weight due to the history behind it. Permitting any drift in the ideology enables things that don't match the history to ride on the coattails of the projects that came before.
It's worth noting that if the SSPL is really so beneficial with zero or near zero drawbacks then there's no need to become embroiled in debates over the ideology to begin with. Plainly state that it isn't "open source", make clear what the difference is, and no one will have any room to complain. You can even coin a new term to make room for license variants. If it's a beneficial arrangement then people will naturally use the license.
Thank you and immibis for bringing this issue up. Always thought this was fishy. I don't fully understand this yet and will need to do more research. I bet these comments are unpopular because SSPL hurts GCP/AWS, which hurts YC.
Not saying the mods of HN are conspiring to bury these comments. But the fish rots from the head in upvote-ordered comment trees
I have had my disagreements with dang over the years, but to be clear: I think the HN mods do incredible work. I disagree with some of their choices, but I don't think they moderate with an eye on YC's bottom line.
The OSI and the FSF are still extremely popular organizations despite their very big issues, I fully expect to upset some people when I bring this up. ;)
Comment was deleted :(
The difference is that SSPL is a license that was written in bad faith with the explicit intent that people can't comply with the parts about running a hosted service.
https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-l...
See section 13, "Offering the Program as a Service". To comply with that you need to release all software used "to make the Program or modified version available as a service" under the SSPL.
For something like redis this includes: redis itself, the os you are using to host redis, the drivers and firmware for the hardware you are using to host redis, and more. Also your whole deployment stack up to and including the mouse drivers you use to click on the "deploy" button.
It is an absurd condition that effectively makes section 13 say "you can't offer a hosted version" and the OSI and FSF are right to reject that fig leaf of "it is like the agpl, but more".
Of course it's the AGPL, which is essentially the SSPL in practice.
The difference is how compliance is handled for cloud providers. Complying with the AGPL requires releasing the source code for the program you're hosting as a service. Complying with the SSPL requires releasing the source code for "all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software" under the terms of the SSPL. This is effectively impossible for any cloud provider to comply with (it would require a massive engineering effort to rewrite every single piece of software used to convey the service), which is why the OSI didn't approve it as an open source license.
Except that it’s actually open source.
In word, but not in deed. I'll say it over and over again: COSS startups don't adopt the AGPL because they want to prioritize user freedom, they adopt it as a means of defense.
Absolutely in deed.
Just because they don't have the same motives as you, doesn't stop it being a user freedom. Anything that shares the changes and improvements is a user improvement.
You misunderstand my point. Startups adopt the AGPL, not for user freedom, but because of the FUD that makes the AGPL just like SSPL in practice.
I wrote more about the issue here: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
I don't really care why they adopt it, only that they do. AGPL is a license I can use, SSPL is not.
Wishing all real-open-source projects best of luck, including valkey, OpenTofu and so on. These are my clear first choice!
Copyleft does not mean fake-open-source, I'd not consider Linux fake-open-source for example. Though plenty of reason to use permissive licenses instead of copyleft and vice versa depending on your situation.
Copyleft is Free Software, free as in freedom. Pushover licenses (such as MIT) are working for free for Amazon, Google and Oracle. Which is fine if your boss is paying you money to work for free for Amazon, Google and Oracle - it's their money. If it's your own spare time, you might not like it as much.
It's a bold strategy, let's see if it works out for them.
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code