It wasn’t clear to me until I read their blog, that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”, which will continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!)
So we as developers don’t have to scramble to replace redis in our SAAS apps and web based software.
This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the redis developers.
Well, except for the fact that "redis" the organization didn't create redis and isn't even the main developer of redis. The origin of Redis the company is literally as a hosting provider for the open source redis that they didn't create.
Amazon / Google / Microsoft made a massive mistake by not hiring Antirez, it's chump change for them to throw him $1-2M a year at him so he can work on Redis for them full time.
This makes me think - is it actually bad for Amazon/Google/Microsoft, that they now have to pay a licensing fee to Redis?
I feel like there’s an argument that these kind of licensing terms are almost beneficial to ‘big cloud’ because the cost/effort of all of these arrangements might dissuade smaller companies from trying to compete in the hosting and managed-services business.
Yes, this seems likely since there is almost no way that an announcement from Microsoft would happen so quickly. There were months of back and forth of licensing meetings prior to this with Redis Labs and Microsoft.
Microsoft would never just announce something like this on a whim.
they don't have to pay. they offer a Redis-compatible service. whatever it is, nobody knows, and almost nobody cares. (sure, in practice they just forked it. but it was not AGPL-like when the fork happened, so ... c'est la vie)
This. Why not support the projects a company uses in ways that go beyond the traditional ways of hiring employees in the form of physical bodies that defy traffic jams to spend large parts of their day in a physical building? There are some larger companies that employ open-source or third-party developers of course, but it seems to me that if your product is built around a technology or framework, it would make sense to invest directly in that project – share a developer resource as it were – instead of hiring an extra person in-company and make sure your use case and reliance is covered in the future.
Both the internet and open-source enable alternative employment and funding models that up until now might have not have been sufficiently explored.
This is actually pretty common. My company did exactly that with an Apache project founder. I know of several others. They still work on their own project, but have to shift priorities.
Sounds like that's basically what happened here, too, except not with Google. I'm not sure why.
> He sold the trademark to some random company. Amazon / Google / Microsoft could have thrown him $30M for that and put Redis in an OSS Foundation.
It sounds like a very bad deal for the likes of Amazon et al. The likes of Amazon offer Redis alongside memcache just because cloud adopters might want to use a memory cache service,but there is no value in buying trademarks for it.
I mean, just take a quick look how Amazon offers managed RDBMS, and how the specific DB is just an afterthought behind a compatible interface.
People seem to think that just because some company has cash that they should mindlessly spend it on things that add absolutely no value.
I mean I love redis, but Amazon Google and Microsoft all probably have readily available in memory key/value stores at hand. Throw a little money and they can make it redis compatible, so we wouldn't have to re-write any code.
Redis is great as an off-the shelf component, but it's not exactly rocket science to re-implement for a big corporation. So redis doesn't really have any leverage in my opinion.
It's all about branding and name recognition: they all profit from Redis via their cloud offerings. They have a strong incentive to support it and to have it as a viable open source project. Similar to other key opensource infrastructure.
Then their cloud-specific solutions are the up-sell (and lock-in).
I don't think so. The only thing they need to let their customers know is that they offer a memory cache service that is compatible with this or that interface. Whether it's Redis, memcache, Garnet, or whatever it might be, it matters nothing at all. All they need to do is ensure clients can consume their service, and that is it.
This whole thing sounds like a desperate cash grab that fails to argue any point on why it's in anyone's best interests to spend small fortunes on nothing at all.
AWS has been pushing MemoryDB, which is redis compatible storage, works with the redis clis and supports Redis features.
I suspect in the long run, Amazon will eventually "pay" the licensing fee for customers that demand "Redis". But they will push everyone else towards their in-house fork of Redis that they brand MemoryDB or whatever. You will pay more for the Redis licensed version and AWS will steer you away from it, but it will be there if you are adamant.
This is already happening with Aurora, which has Postgres and Mysql compatible versions. If your company is big enough for special pricing, then you know they want you on Aurora. The pricing discounts for Aurora are insane (50%+) compared to what you might get on a traditional Postgres of equivalent size (20%). They will probably do this with MemoryDB and Redis eventually. Redis is available if you really need it. But this other thing that they maintain is discountable to half the cost of the other one and it becomes a pretty obvious choice.
VMware (Pivotal, if I remember correctly, which was part of VMware) hired him for a while, about a decade ago. They did a huge mistake as well, because they didn't take advantage of him at all.
*one of the creators. Being the first committer doesn’t mean he wrote all of the thing that is today called Redis.
It’s a community effort and this is just as rude to the community that built it as they are claiming SaaS vendors are being to them by not “giving back”.
This idea that you are owed reciprocity for publishing free software is about as logically sound as expecting compensation from someone when you give them a gift.
> This idea that you are owed reciprocity for publishing free software is about as logically sound as expecting compensation from someone when you give them a gift.
Ironically this happened because the community was using the BSD license instead of the GPL, when the former allows someone to fork the code under a different license.
If the big cloud providers wanted to stick it to them, they would create their own fork of the code under the GPL and make substantial contributions to it so that one becomes the main one.
I think everybody here understand that you legally can fork bsd code under a new license. I think you and them differ in what you think is morally correct to do for an open source maintainer in the specific context of the redis project.
When I chose BSD for Redis, I did it exactly for these reasons. Before Redis, I mostly used the GPL license. Then my beliefs about licensing changed, so I picked the BSD, since it's an "open field" license, everything can happen. One of the things I absolutely wanted, when I started Redis, was: to avoid that I needed some piece of paper from every contributor to give me the copyright and, at the same time, the ability, if needed, to take my fork for my products, create a commercial Redis PRO, or alike. At the same time the BSD allows for many branches to compete, with different licensing and development ideas.
When authors pick a license, it's a serious act. It's not a joke like hey I pick BSD but mind you, I don't really want you to follow the terms! Make sure to don't fork or change license. LOL. A couple of years ago somebody forked Redis and then sold it during some kind of acquisition. The license makes it possible, and nobody complained. Now Redis Inc. changes license, and other parties fork the code to develop it in a different context. Both things are OK with the license, so both things can be done.
A different thing is what one believes to be correct or not for the future of some software. That is, if I was still in charge, would I change license? But that's an impossible game to play, I'm away from the company for four years and I'm not facing the current issues with AWS impossible-to-compete-with scenario. I don't know and I don't care, it does not make sense to do such guesswork. What I know for sure is that licensing is a spectrum. I release code under the MIT or BSD, but that's just me. I understand other choices as well. What I don't understand is making the future of open source in the hands of what OSI says it's correct and wrong. Read the terms of the license, and understand if you are fine with them.
I totally agree. Still I hope that many great projects under BSD and MIT will keep being actively developed under that very license, but I also enjoy the freedom of knowing that I can do more or less what I please with the code.
> *one of the creators. Being the first committer doesn’t mean he wrote all of the thing that is today called Redis.
This is a false equivalency. No one is defining "creator" as "wrote all of the thing". When describing a project/product as a whole, there's a clear, massive difference between "creator" and "contributor".
Let's say you get a small patch merged into the Linux kernel, would you then call yourself "one of the creators of Linux"? The vast majority of people would not find this remotely acceptable!
How about proprietary software and employment arrangements. Let's say a Microsoft intern gets a few lines of code merged into SQL Server. Would you call them "one of the creators of SQL Server"?
Extending this logic to other words, would you say a company with N employees actually has N founders? No, because these words mean different things.
It doesnt matter if they would've or not. Presumed innocent until proven guilty (via action). Using this as an argument doesn't work to justify redis inc's actions.
I think your use of innocence is referring to your perceived ethical and moral compass, so while you have a theoretical point about guilty and innocent, your argument isn’t based on legality of actions which ultimately is all that matters.
But if you think AWS would have any shred of ethics when it comes to a topic like this, you’re much more optimistic than I am.
Yep still the biggest leachers. Token hires and flowery PR campaigns doesn't entitle them to most of the profits of other vendors products or absolve them of their predatory behavior.
But they wont be able to leech Redis's future contributions. Knowing AWS they'll most likely create a fork to continue raking in most of the profits in the short-term.
Redis Labs was a long time sponsor for the full-time development of Redis then later compensated the creator of Redis for their rights to Redis Technology and branding who was ended up retiring from technology to write Sci-Fi books. By contrast AWS takes most of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back, making them the biggest leacher and the primary motivation for the relicensing to prevent mega corps with unfettered access to their future contributions that AWS repackages to compete against them.
So whilst their previous license allowed AWS to leech off them, it's now been relicensed to prevent them from profiting off their future investments without compensating anything back.
During an all-hands around 2008 I asked AWS leadership whether AWS was going to open source their technologies the answer was we're thinking about it. 16 years later it has not happened, nor it will given the record ;(
You buy the trademark/name from the original author. I'm the case of GPL or other assigned work licenses, you sell the baseline copyright and they can change it.
AWS, along with Google and others have created a fork already. It’s very rude of you to call someone a token hire when they’re high up in the contributors list (#7 all time). Denigrating their work for no reason other than to “win” an internet argument.
We’ll see what happens though. If redis Inc (that never created redis) wins over AWS, GCP and others (who also never created redis). Both contributed to its maintenance, as GitHub clearly shows. We’ll see which fork wins out.
> It’s very rude of you to call someone a token hire when they’re high up in the contributors list (#7 all time).
I've called AWS's hiring of a single developer a token hire that they then go on to write flowery PR posts about to camouflage their predatory relationship with OSS vendors.
For concrete numbers they contributed 165/12111 commits for a total of a 1.36% of the commits.
Whilst that qualifies as a valuable contribution to any project, it's also dwarfed by the 350M investment in Redis Labs and doesn't absolve AWS from being a called a "leacher" by helping themselves to the majority of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back.
It’s funny that you would use commits to quantify investment from AWS, but you’d use $ to buy shares in future profits to quantify investment from redis labs. Why not use the same yardstick for both?
Either way, it doesn’t matter. Not one bit. Everyone who put in effort into redis did it knowing the license. There’s nothing wrong in relicensing future commits. There’s nothing wrong with forking. There’s nothing wrong in using whichever fork works better for you.
You’re insisting up and down that AWS and others were leeching because they didn’t own the copyright to redis. I’ve never heard this interpretation of OSS before, but sure maybe you’re right. But we’ll see which fork comes out on top a year from now.
That's fair in isolation, but one can justifiably argue that a repeated pattern of behavior is clearly predatory.
Specifically: have the major cloud providers ever created a successful FOSS database, cache, or fulltext search index project from the ground up? By this I mean, a FOSS project with its own protocol, own community from scratch, not a fork or a re-implementation or based on another FOSS project, nor a late-stage company acquisition.
I'm struggling to think of even a single example. Even for broader infrastructure (not just db/cache/search), there's few examples, only Kubernetes comes to mind rapidly.
If the cloud providers are widely practicing "FOSS for thee but not for me" with respect to creation of new infrastructure projects, that's predatory and unsustainable.
Have any major software company ever created a successful software from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some language ! They are predatory !
Wait, does any language team ever created a successful implementation from the ground up ? No, they all base their work on some hardware people ! They are predatory !
Wait, does any hardware manufacturers ever created a successful product from the ground up ? No, they all base their work of some software ! They are predatory !
Not even remotely the same situation at all. It's not about using some other existing language/hardware/software and building something on top of it.
Rather, it's a question of cloud vendors repeatedly building open source competing drop-in re-implementations of external db/cache/search products when those original products switch away from FOSS licenses to survive, despite the cloud vendor being a million times larger and better resourced than the original db/cache/search developers. The cloud vendors aren't building something on top of these products (like your examples), but rather they are aiming to competitively replace these products and capture the mindshare of their communities.
This strategy allows the cloud vendor to skip the hard steps of developing a unique product from scratch, designing a client/server protocol from scratch, building a community from scratch, and so many other things.
Separately, the cloud vendors do also build their own unique db/cache/search products, but they just don't ever make them source-available or self-hostable when they do so -- let alone FOSS. That is what makes the pattern of behavior predatory: the big cloud vendors use their dominant positions to bring non-FOSS products to the market, while using FOSS re-implementations to destroy competitors who dare move away from FOSS themselves.
None of the 3 examples you described above are in any way related to this scenario.
To repeat a comment by another user upthread: hence the relicensing.
I suppose I’m not understanding the point of your position. Software authors cannot fix a licensing mistake by changing the past, but they can use a different license moving forwards.
Yes, they paid. And they can use the code they paid for. But it doesn't give them right to leech of any future code written by someone else IN THE FUTURE.
Calling it leech isn't right, because what makes aws any different from another user? Just because they're selling the hosting, doesnt make it any different to a regular user.
Code contributions from amazon would've been leeched by other parties using redis as well - something which amazon is accepting (and probably encouraging).
And considering Redis Inc hasn't contributed the majority of the code, they won't be able to leech off other people's code because why on earth would anyone contribute to this trainwreck!
AWS are the largest leeches of OSS, syphoning off most the profits and contribute relatively nothing back towards the OSS projects they rent seek from.
The "Free for all except mega cloud corps" license changes are to disrupt this status quo which currently sees the mega cloud corps with impenetrable moats from capturing most of the value of OSS products others spend their resources into building, AWS are then able to use their war chest profits to out resource, and out compete them, using their own code-bases against them.
It's unfortunate organizations need to resort to relicensing stop this predatory behavior, but its clear in AWSs 20+ year history they're not going to change their behavior on their own.
It is not owned by the company. You are free to create your own fork of the code with all the attendant benefits, including monetization, if applicable.
Who owns the copyrights? According to the article, since 7.0.0, 24.8% of commits are from Tencent, 19.5% from Redis, 6.7% from Alibaba, 5.2% from Huawei, 5.2% from Amazon.
I wonder if there is a qualitative analysis of the commits. Aka, it changed a line of comment vs it introduced a new feature or refactored and increased long term viability, etc.
Some projects require signing copyright transfer before making commits (legal document claiming that you are a) copyright holder and b) you transfer those rights to them ie CLA [0]) so single entity holds whole copyrights.
They usually have a GHA that checks it when proposing PRs.
It doesn't look like redis has any of this.
So they run RedisLabs purely on trademark + admin rights on GH on redis/redis.
If that's the case then they also cannot legally change licence of code that's already there because they're not sole copyright holders of that code.
ps. as a side note that's why ie. SQLite doesn't allow external contributions at all, even though their code is Public Domain – because they can legally claim full copyright/authorship.
If you own the copyrights you had money to spend at some point. Other than that unless you are one of the contributors you are leeching, just different flavors of leeching.
How does buying a copyright to a name, literally just being able to call it "Redis" equate to purchasing the code contributions that individual contributors make? They bought the rights to the name, not the project, the project was open-source until the license change and belongs to society as a whole.
Your confusing copyrights with trademarks. The project belongs to the authors (perhaps in shares depending on the jurisdiction where it is being copied/derived) not the society. The options that were licensed under BSD generally remain licensed under BSD unless someone revoked that license. It does not seem that the latter has happened.
I agree, I didn't make any argument against that, I just don't see the difference between <party with money that bought a name and sells the free work of others> and <party with money that didn't buy a name and sells the free work of others>. My only argument here is that there's not much difference between AWS and Garantia Data from my limited understanding of the situation.
It was bsd licensed. The code that you received before is still covered by the bsd license. You can pretty much do anything you want with that code except misrepresent yourself as the author.
Public domain isn't the only form of free software. You can literally use it in exactly the same way as you did before. Nothing has been taken away from you.
We don't know what they got. Perhaps some of them were paid to create the contributions. And, in any case, that's OK. The contributors knew or should have known the impact of the license. They could've picked a more restrictive/free license, depending on your point of view. I guess they can still revoke the license. They have not given up their copyrights and the license is arguably not irrevocable.
Often, as that's what rentiers are. Generally bad for society. And have captured many regulatory processes and got tons of tax breaks for producing nothing.
One of the well known flaws of capitalism, in the 'bad, but everything else is worse' sense.
Not that capitalism is the perfect economic scheme, but rentiers exist in many economic regimes. Communism probably has more rentiers than capitalism, i.e. many people take more than they contribute.
> If you're looking for a primer on what is going on with Redis and why its license change matters, this is the article to read. As someone close to the situation, this is the best summary I've seen.
AWS was directly funding Redis development, from the article, they are one of the top contributors, they even employed one of the core redis maintainers full time to work on Redis.
All the Redis users have is a license to use and an expectation. An expectation is a belief that Santa will bring presents, that's all.
Where the value is or was is pure sophistry. You don't have a crystal ball, just like everyone else.
All this discussion is envious bellyaching from those that are probably leeches themselves. They just want the free gravy train running for themselves.
And the license allows them to fork it. Which is what they are doing. Open Source working exactly as it should. I just want to be sure the facts are understood. Amazon has many faults and there are plenty of reasons to dislike and not use them. But leeching off of Redis Labs is not one of them.
From my point of view managed databases only really make sense for toy projects, if you’re using these things at scale it’s much more economical to buy some servers and hire some people of your own, and use plain pre-VC Redis. But big corporations seem to have some kind of a fetish for lighting money on fire, and the fight here is fundamentally over in whose fireplace to do it.
> From my point of view managed databases only really make sense for toy projects
it is more expensive to buy managed, but you offload work. I would imagine toy projects are more cash constrained, and makes more sense to rent cheap servers and roll your own.
On the other hand, larger scale projects would rather pay to offload the work of managing and scaling redis.
Toy project are both cash and time constrained, but they’re at a scale where managed is cheap enough because they want to get you hooked.
Large scale projects can take advantage of economies of scale and hire ops people. I’ve found cloud support pretty lacklustre compared to having someone to talk to face-to-face who understands the whole stack for your particular application.
Of course conventional corporate wisdom says waste as much as you like on services as long as you keep payroll down, that may be a bigger challenge than any of the technical ones.
In my experience using redis, one of its better attributes is how easy it is to manage and scale. I've never scaled it to say, Facebook levels, but at that scale, I'm not sure managed services make much sense either.
Yes, it is ludicrous. My company uses hosted databases and "droplets" from DigitalOcean. Their pricing is absolutely absurd. I always wondered how they stay in business, but now I know.
Right, now count in contributions from other cloud providers: tensent, huawei, alibaba and you'll find out that they contributed much more, than actual redis-employed developers
I'm not for or against in this case. I'm anti what Redis the company is doing but I don't give a crap otherwise.
Are we really counting contribution based on LoC? Haven't we over the decades decided that isn't valid? Guess every person that makes this claim should once again have their performance based on LoC...
Some simple examples, I'm not saying this is the case though. What if most of Amazon's contributions are high impact contributions where most of Redis orgs are simply maintenance or feature pushes. What if the same is true for a 1% contributor?
By your own statement doesn't Tencent then have a larger claim to redis that Amazon or Redis does?
> Are we really counting contribution based on LoC?
I think they didn't include the LoC in the article as anything other than a broad estimate of contributions, perhaps for lack of any better measurements.
> This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the redis developers.
But the developers licensed the software at no charge. What kind of compensation are they entitled to then?
Sounds like a case of sellers remorse/take-backsies one of the problems that open source was aiming to solve.
Not sure what you meant. Is it wrong for Chinese companies or AWS to develop Redis or is it great, or something in-between?
I wonder how many bellyachers here contributed to Redis vs. just leeched. (Not a rhetorical question.) How many are just in the peanut gallery (just like I).
The alternative is to write it yourself or commission it, so let's be honest, it is about the cost. When you don't know what something is about, it's about money
Whether it's gratis or not isn't the issue. Some people used Redis not only because it's free of cost, but also because it's open source. It's not anymore.
It is open source up until Redis 7.4. Why does it matter to you (someone that cares about it being open source) if future versions created by this specific company are not? You (or someone else) can fork it and continue the work in an open manner. AFAIAC that is the literal purpose of open source.
I don't understand what your point is. I'm saying that it doesn't matter that the community edition is still free of charge, because it's the fact that it's not open source anymore that's the issue. What part of that are you responding to?
I suppose they're getting at why was it important that Redis was open source to you? Under the assumption someone else would be responsible for free updates?
The problem with this is, it's virtually impossible to compete against the FOSS trunk that your now-closed-source software branched off of, or FOSS clones of it. Low-end proprietary UNIXes got wiped out by GNU/Linux and the BSDs, for example.
Amazon, Google, MS, and all the rest easily have the talent and resources to create a Redis replacement with code that already exists. They'll do so because it is to their advantage to not charge for the license fees Redis now wants.
Would be nice if Redis wasnt eating Lua's lunch and would make a big (public) donation to https://www.lua.org/donations.html#donation (Maybe they do, but it wasn't something i could find evidence of)
> that redis will remain free to use in their “community edition”,
I mean, they've already changed licensing for parts of the project twice in 6 years. I have zero faith that they won't pull a Vader and change the terms of the agreement again.
> continue to be supported and maintained (and improved!)
I'd guess that > 99% of any "improvements" Redis the company make, will affect < 1% of users.
As has been pointed out numerous times, it's essentially "done" in terms of functionality - but as a VC funded company they have to constantly do "something", so they'll keep adding niche upon niche features, giving the resume padders at other VC companies something sparkly and new to spend their budgets on.
Meanwhile 99% of people just need a fast key/value store, and maybe half of those need it to be distributed/replicated, and maybe a third need it to run some kind of scripting (Lua) to do "in-db" operations atomically.
With the addition of native TLS several years ago redis is, for 99% of users "functionally complete".
Sure, new TLS versions will come along and need support, kernel or library features they use will adapt or have improvements, etc, but I think you're vastly over estimating the amount of "improvements" to expect that will impact the vast, vast majority of users.
> preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the redis developers
Look I hate AWS more than most people would find reasonable, and even I'll admit they're not the "bad guys" in this scenario.
The project was released as BSD licensed, so AWS could if they wanted, fork it, and offer a service based on that, and make any fixes/improvements just in their service offering.
They didn't. They had paid staff contributing back to the redis project, for a number of years. This was literally the goldilocks project of the OSS world:
Numerous massive tech companies who all have the financial ability to simply run their own fork, and the legal right to do so (due to BSD-3), willingly contributing to the maintenance of the project.
As I've said before, the story of what's happened to Redis (and HashiCorp stuff) is likely to become a warning to the tech community in general: if an OSS project you rely on transfers control from it's founder(s) to a company, you probably need to consider continuing with a fork from the last open version, because apparently "(try to) monetise popular open source" is the newest way to win the douchebag villain award given to MBAs at VC funded companies.
>As I've said before, the story of what's happened to Redis (and HashiCorp stuff) is likely to become a warning to the tech community in general: if an OSS project you rely on transfers control from it's founder(s) to a company, you probably need to consider continuing with a fork from the last open version, because apparently "(try to) monetise popular open source" is the newest way to win the douchebag villain award given to MBAs at VC funded companies.
Or, even simpler, if the project is not contributed to some open source foundation, and does not have copyleft license - it's a trap.
Contributing to a foundation may be a trap too. If you assign your copyrights to a foundation, in many jurisdictions you no longer have control of the code you wrote. That means they could license the code in a way that you wouldn't do.
Yes, but that's where the "foundation" part comes in. If it's one whose charter explicitly states that it exists to support open-source software development, it is legally unable to do otherwise.
Yeah. As usual whenever something like this happens, there’s an endless supply of blatantly misleading FUD by open source license purists. Let’s not pretend that Redis has become unusable by….all but a few organisations selling hosted Redis solutions. The people who are “rushing” to replace Redis are probably doing so in a way that isn’t on their boss’s radar, and it’ll stay that way because their bosses would probably tell them to go do more important things.
So we as developers don’t have to scramble to replace redis in our SAAS apps and web based software.
This is more about preventing AWS from eating their lunch by providing redis-as-a-service, without paying any sort of compensation to the redis developers.
Redis’ blog post: https://redis.com/blog/redis-adopts-dual-source-available-li...