Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valkey Celebrates Its First Stable Release As Open-Source Redis Fork

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

  • Nth_man
    replied
    Originally posted by hf_139 View Post

    All of those big corporations run modified versions. They share changes they like to share and keep private what they don't want their competitors to have. The BSD license allows that, the GPL doesn't. They leech off your OpenSource project, you are giving them free stuff if you do BSD.
    And those same corporations then brag about supporting OpenSource when they let something trickle down.
    The decision between MIT/BSD and GPL is (mainly) if you want closed source projects to be able to use your code (and compete against your software) without giving back.

    (In practice it's more complicated with license incompatibility and so on.)

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by zeehio View Post

    For some years I was getting my salary thanks to my free software contributions, some GPL others MIT licensed, so yes, I have seen many cents from free software.

    Different experiences lead to different opinions and recommendations, I guess
    thats the difference tho.
    on GPL, you get your salary until they dont need/want you any more.

    With a commercial licence you get royalties until they dont need/want the software any more.

    but commercial licences are not good for hobbiests ccnc fills that gap without cutting the authors out of commercial royalties.

    Leave a comment:


  • zeehio
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    having sold several (very large) commercial licences for software I originally released as CCNC I would recommend it.

    never seen a cent for anything I released as GPL, have you?
    For some years I was getting my salary thanks to my free software contributions, some GPL others MIT licensed, so yes, I have seen many cents from free software.

    Different experiences lead to different opinions and recommendations, I guess

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by zeehio View Post
    , I would avoid using them for that purpose
    having sold several (very large) commercial licences for software I originally released as CCNC I would recommend it.

    never seen a cent for anything I released as GPL, have you?

    Leave a comment:


  • mb_q
    replied
    The real shame is that the Linux Foundation uses its authority to support this.

    Leave a comment:


  • hf_139
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    I dont see how GPL helps here at all?

    If you don't want your stuff forked and want to keep control of it keep it closed source.

    If you want to keep control of it, make it opensource, and not allow megacorps to steal your stuff, release a CC-NC version.
    If you distribute a modified form of a GPL-licensed program, or binaries from it, then you must also make your modified version of the program available under the same license as. You also have to make your own program GPL if it statically links against a GPL licensed program.
    The BSD license doesn't require that.

    FreeBSD published a whole essay where they tell you how awesome it is to be a cuckold and how GPL won't allow commercialization while BSD makes your project be used by all those big players who don't give you anything in return while earning billions on your back, which you are supposed to love.

    All of those big corporations run modified versions. They share changes they like to share and keep private what they don't want their competitors to have. The BSD license allows that, the GPL doesn't. They leech off your OpenSource project, you are giving them free stuff if you do BSD.
    And those same corporations then brag about supporting OpenSource when they let something trickle down.

    Leave a comment:


  • zeehio
    replied
    Originally posted by mSparks View Post

    I dont see how GPL helps here at all?

    If you don't want your stuff forked and want to keep control of it keep it closed source.

    If you want to keep control of it, make it opensource, and not allow megacorps to steal your stuff, release a CC-NC version.
    Creative Commons - Non Commercial is not free and open source software neither according to the Free Software Foundation nor the Open Source Initiative.

    With CC-NC you are out of any popular Linux distribution channels.

    Creative Commons licenses were not designed for software, I would avoid using them for that purpose

    Leave a comment:


  • mSparks
    replied
    Originally posted by hf_139 View Post

    Choose your license wisely.
    If you want to be an OpenSource project, and leave yourself the option to do dual licensing, do GPL.
    If you want to be the ultimate loser who literally works for Google, Amazon and Oracle for free, do BSD.
    I dont see how GPL helps here at all?

    If you don't want your stuff forked and want to keep control of it keep it closed source.

    If you want to keep control of it, make it opensource, and not allow megacorps to steal your stuff, release a CC-NC version.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by hf_139 View Post
    This is why you have to go for a GPL license since the beginning.

    Both Apache and BSD licenses are just seen as free labour for corporations.
    And if you later decide to change it, because the corporations earn lots of money because of you while contributing nothing back, they will not start to pay you, but instead fork your project and crush you.
    Suddenly they will have the money necessary to run the development... but against you.... because they can't allow someone to stop being a cuckold. They can't risk other projects to do the same.

    Choose your license wisely.
    If you want to be an OpenSource project, and leave yourself the option to do dual licensing, do GPL.
    If you want to be the ultimate loser who literally works for Google, Amazon and Oracle for free, do BSD.
    The problem is not the licensing, the problem is people being bad at monetizing and creating a business.
    It's ok to give your stuff for free if you have another way of monetizing your product (or don't care about monetizing at all). It's even ok to give away your product at first and have a change of heart when you notice others are using it to make money. And it's ok to change the license when that happens. But you also have to deal with the fallout, don't expect me to cry you a river.

    (And yes, OSS is notoriously hard to monetize.)

    Leave a comment:


  • CommunityMember
    replied
    Originally posted by spicfoo View Post

    That's likely given the contributors involved has been involved with upstream before the fork.
    While Redis, itself, has a strong developer team, the majority of the non-redis employed significant contributors (mostly employed by the hyperscalers, which is no real surprise),, have moved to Valkey. As with the MySQL and MariaDB example there is likely to be some divergence over time between Redis and Valkey in terms of features.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X