Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Foundation Launches Valkey As A Redis Fork

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

  • S.Pam
    replied
    Michael would you consider doing a comparison and benchmark of valkey, redis, dragonfly and keydb?

    Leave a comment:


  • DumbFsck
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • hf_139
    replied
    Originally posted by peterdk View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • peterdk
    replied
    Originally posted by hf_139 View Post
    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?
    Last edited by peterdk; 29 March 2024, 11:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • hf_139
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • QwertyChouskie
    replied
    Originally posted by ssokolow View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by QwertyChouskie View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dwagner
    replied
    Originally posted by timrichardson View Post
    Red hat?
    IBM will certainly milk some companies for a while while their incompetence keeps them in vendor-lock-in. But every company I have contacts into, both big and small, that has used RedHat in the past, has either already migrated away from it or is in the process of doing so.

    Regarding Redis, the effort for companies to switch to the still-open-source fork is very, very low.

    Leave a comment:


  • fitzie
    replied
    this other redis fork is now probably DOA. They tried to switch from BSD to LGPL https://redict.io/

    Leave a comment:


  • timrichardson
    replied
    Originally posted by QwertyChouskie View Post
    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.
    Red hat?

    Actually many businesses use open source to make money. They don't sell open source directly, they use it build added value products. They might be selling cars, mobile phones or supercomputers, or added value software .
    ​​​​​​it's like timber. You don't see it from the outside but most houses are built from it.

    Except of course that builders buy the timber. For open source, say you want to launch a phone with some advanced feature, like a folding screen. You have to provide an OS which supports two screens. You could write an entire OS or you could take an existing OS and add the extra bit. That's much cheaper. You just saved millions of dollars. So that's money made by open source. Probably this new phone would not even launch of it required a proprietary OS, and if it did it would have much higher costs to recover. A competitor that used OS + some contributions would have a big advantage, in time and cost.

    You have to make your software contributions available to your competitors but you are competing on advanced hardware so that's ok. When lots of businesses all make the same decision you have a sustainable open source project. And now Samsung is locked in to open source. If they want to later make a proprietary os, now they have to reimplement an entire OS AND their contributions they already paid to develop. Every additional contribution makes further contributions more likely. Sustainable.

    How
    ​do developers make money? Well Samsung is paying for this coding. That's it. It's not very exciting. An open source company can't be a unicorn because open source means you have to give the software away.

    Open source is valuable in enabling other things. It's not going to ever capture much value in its own IP. You can't sell open source software. Investors who fell for the Redis Labs business model (or Docker's) were silly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X