Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

    Phoronix: Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

    Given the recent change by Redis to adopt dual source-available licensing for all their releases moving forward (Redis Source Available License v2 and Server Side Public License v1), the Linux Foundation announced today their fork of Redis...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    Source available... Couldn't they go GPL?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      Source available... Couldn't they go GPL?
      No, they specifically wanted to get large cloud providers to pay them and that would not have been required by using GPL.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Palu Macil View Post

        No, they specifically wanted to get large cloud providers to pay them and that would not have been required by using GPL.
        You can provide support/warranty for a fee, and still remain GPL.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm disappointed they went to that and then didn't go to the next logical step of Valkeyrie

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

            You can provide support/warranty for a fee, and still remain GPL.
            Yeah, but the cloud providers likely wouldn't be interested in that. They are the ones selling support/warranty and Redis wants part of that profit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Has un-open-sourcing a project ever worked for anyone? Especially a project this big with this many stakeholders.

              Sure, they'll probably get a little bit more short-term profit, but that will run dry as Redis loses both its installbase and mindshare.

              Comment


              • #8
                It's interesting that the Linux foundation chose to quote cloud providers in their statement, since they are the ones that made Redis change the license.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Fantastic development, I wish the Linux Foundation would adopt a BSD style license for more of their projects, including Linux.

                  It's interesting that the Linux foundation chose to quote cloud providers in their statement, since they are the ones that made Redis change the license.
                  The cloud providers are the Linux Foundation:

                  Linux Foundation members help support the development of shared technology resources while accelerating their own innovation through open source.


                  Has un-open-sourcing a project ever worked for anyone? Especially a project this big with this many stakeholders.‚Äč
                  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:



                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
                    So if the Linux Foundation, which manages the Linux kernel, doesn't have a problem with a BSD style license, why does anyone else?
                    Some individuals have decided GPL or BSD is "more" free (there is often strong disagreement on what "more" means) and some of those individuals wish to move everyone to their version of "more".

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X