Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

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

  • fahrenheit
    replied
    The issue in my opinion, as someone said already, is that cloud providers (mainly aws, azure and gcp), take these open source (usually community versions) products and offer them as part of their solutions while not giving back much to the vendors. Additionally these providers have their own roadmap which may not align with the vendor.
    From the top of my head I remember, MongoDB (of which aws, gcp and azure offer different solutions with varying degrees of api compatibility), Elasticsearch, PostgreSQL, Kafka, etc.

    One may think that the cloud providers are offering added value, but in fact they usually offer minimal differences and older versions and you will usually pay twice for the privilege of having a cloud ui to manage some parts of the software while the provider support is only available on the higher tier where you pay 5x more.

    Vendors try to change the licence to protect themselves and in most cases earn more money to their shareholders, but that money will also pay for the developers that actually develop and mantain the code. Independent developers are enough for small projects but for large projects you do need paid professionals.

    Such is the world where we live in.

    Leave a comment:


  • timrichardson
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

    You can provide support/warranty for a fee, and still remain GPL.
    The business model of Redis Labs, which was sold to investors, was
    + Use an open source licence for credibility and to rapidly acquire customers, and also to suppress competition from other open source projects
    + Convert a share of these customers into customers who pay for a hosted redis service
    + Convert some customers into those using closed source extra features


    So the way redis labs wanted to make money was to compete as a hosting business. People say AWS exploits open source by offering it as a hosted service but it was Redis Labs that chose to compete with AWS for hosting dollars.

    ​​​the idea of charging for service and advanced features, the open core approach, makes more sense to me. But Redis Labs was already doing this. I guess too many users were happy with the open source functionality.

    This means that redis is not valuable enough to earn lots of money. No surprise there, it's just a single threaded key-value database. This type of software is the sweet spot for open source.
    ​​​​There was always going to be an open source something like redis.
    it's a shame that the Linux foundation went for BSD but it gives choice I suppose, considering there's redict.
    I think I will first try redict.

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    Originally posted by jokeyrhyme View Post
    I've often thought that source code isn't the most valuable asset, it's the people who are experienced in enhancing, maintaining, and adopting that source code

    So a naive fork without any of that human expertise probably wouldn't last very long and would (hopefully) not see much adoption, although there are some big names involved here so I don't think that's going to be a problem for valkey
    If you go through the recent commit history of Redis you will likely see that the non-Redis employed contributors appear to be overwhelmingly employed by the big cloud providers and large customers (which is not at all surprising, as large users are likely to see problems due to scale and they want to address those issues).

    It will be interesting to see how Redis uses the Valkey commits (by developers that used to generate PR's in Redis itself) going forward.
    Last edited by CommunityMember; 28 March 2024, 05:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jokeyrhyme
    replied
    Originally posted by jokeyrhyme View Post
    And for the window of time where the two projects are compatible, we'll probably see projects use redis for self-hosting and local development/testing whilst simultaneously using valkey when cloud-hosted, so there's some cross-pollination of users there
    This might also harm the adoption of any feature that isn't implemented compatibly in both valkey and redis, making it difficult for either project to entice paying users with new features
    Last edited by jokeyrhyme; 28 March 2024, 05:31 PM. Reason: missing square brackets in quote tag

    Leave a comment:


  • jokeyrhyme
    replied
    Originally posted by QwertyChouskie View Post
    Has un-open-sourcing a project ever worked for anyone?
    I'd love to see a study on this

    I've often thought that source code isn't the most valuable asset, it's the people who are experienced in enhancing, maintaining, and adopting that source code

    So a naive fork without any of that human expertise probably wouldn't last very long and would (hopefully) not see much adoption, although there are some big names involved here so I don't think that's going to be a problem for valkey

    And for the window of time where the two projects are compatible, we'll probably see projects use redis for self-hosting and local development/testing whilst simultaneously using valkey when cloud-hosted, so there's some cross-pollination of users there

    But I still doubt very much that this move translates into profit for the Redis folks, however much they might deserve it

    Leave a comment:


  • ehansin
    replied
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    I'm disappointed they went to that and then didn't go to the next logical step of Valkeyrie
    That will be the fork of Valkey

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaxad0127
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    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.
    They're referring to Redis, not Valkey.

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • sophisticles
    replied
    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.​
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • geearf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X