> 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.
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.