Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

[ssokolow]

Has un-open-sourcing a project ever worked for anyone?

Seems to have worked for ASEprite. Libresprite is nowhere near as big or well-known.

[QwertyChouskie]

Seems to have worked for ASEprite. Libresprite is nowhere near as big or well-known.

Interesting, but my comment was more talking about libraries/frameworks/etc, rather than end-user apps like ASEprite or Audacity.

[hf_139]

Not gonna use it, because of the BSD license, which basically turns you into a free laborer for corporations, while the GPLv3 forces them better into committing back.

There are many redis forks to choose from. This one definitely isn't it.

[peterdk]

Not gonna use it, because of the BSD license, which basically turns you into a free laborer for corporations, while the GPLv3 forces them better into committing back.

There are many redis forks to choose from. This one definitely isn't it.

Was Redis not always BSD?

[hf_139]

Was Redis not always BSD?

yes, which explains why corporations like Google and AWS are outraged about the license change and spearheaded forks.
If redis wants to go for a dual licensing and keep redis OpenSource while corporations have to pay if they want to modify it without publishing their changes, it is fine with me.
Qt went that way. And matrix-synapse recently changed to AGPLv3 while also offering dual licensing. Matrix got screwed over by government institutions who used and modified their product without publishing their changes.

OpenSource does NOT mean to offer free work for billion $$$ corporations and governments.

Stallman is and was always right about everything.

[DumbFsck]

Fantastic development, I wish the Linux Foundation would adopt a BSD style license for more of their projects, including Linux.

If Linux was BSD 3-clause from the start it wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.

There would've been 1000 Domain Specific Linuxes (DSLs - lol ) with "closed source" modifications, extensions and etc. So the core kernel would not have evolved nowhere near as much as it has.

Where does anyone see anything that says this is no longer open source?

Due to the Redis licensing changes, Valkey is forking from Redis 7.2.4 and will maintain a BSD 3-clause license.

BSD is an open source license.

For the record, the Linux kernel does not exclusively need to be GPL:


Linux kernel licensing rules — The Linux Kernel documentation
https://docs.kernel.org/process/license-rules.html






The Linux Kernel is provided under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only (GPL-2.0), as provided in LICENSES/preferred/GPL-2.0, with an explicit syscall exception described in LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note, as described in the COPYING file.

Aside from that, individual files can be provided under a dual license, e.g. one of the compatible GPL variants and alternatively under a permissive license like BSD, MIT etc.


So if the Linux Foundation, which manages the Linux kernel, doesn't have a problem with a BSD style license, why does anyone else?

You misread the article. The new redis-2 license is the issue. So the linux foundation will take the last release of redis while it still used BSD, fork and maintain it from there, maintaining the same license as it had.

Also, most people don't have a problem with BSD-style licenses. Most FOSS projects created nowadays are permissive licensed, according to some github stats I read somewhere somewhen. But of course no license is right for every project.

For MANY projects, viral copyleft licenses are necessary, if, not for anything else, at least to ensure compatibility.

[S.Pam]

Michael would you consider doing a comparison and benchmark of valkey, redis, dragonfly and keydb?