drewdevault

8 ms·

31.
by drewdevault 2y ago
It's essentially a do-ocracy in practice, though we have discussed the possibility of putting together a foundation to steward it, particularly if we start to get money involved. There are currently five people who have admin rights wi
32.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Just passing by with a quick nit to pick: >And I'll s/redis/redict in my docker-compose.yml for small/personal projects, and that'll be the end of it FYI we're publishing to registry.redict.io, so s:redis:re
33.
by drewdevault 2y ago
To clarify, they did not purchase the copyright -- they purchased the trademark, and are using it to attempt to capture the practical value of the copyright. The copyright is by far the more valuable of the two, but they do not actually own
34.
by drewdevault 2y ago
I agree with dartos, but I will state for the record that you can use Redict for free in production even if you do sell a hosted version of it.
35.
by drewdevault 2y ago
>That said, correct me if I’m wrong, but, as far as I understand, what Redis Ltd did, they could do regardless of the license. Copyleft wouldn’t have stopped them, given the CLA. Redis never had a CLA and Redis Ltd does not hold the copy
36.
by drewdevault 2y ago
I don't see any reason why this is off-topic. Naturally the license change is a distinguishing feature of Redict and a reasonable subject for discussion. I lost the password to my old account.
37.
by drewdevault 2y ago
I think you're missing the reciprocal nature of the arrangement here. Since you seem to assert that it's acceptable to release software under a proprietary license (and I agree with you, most of the time), you must believe that th
38.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Governments, businesses, they're all just institutions and I see no reason not to use them as illustrative examples. The MIT maximally enables exploitation; copyleft maximally enables freedom. From the point of a proprietary fork of a
39.
by drewdevault 2y ago
I don't think that's true. It's only true if freedom == freedom from obligation, which is a naive view of freedom. But if freedom == guarantees of rights, then Redict is more free. This is how freedoms actually work in practi
40.
by drewdevault 2y ago
A hypothetical license that said "no forks allowed" would not be an open source license. If Redis used the LGPL we could still fork it, we'd just have to use the LGPL for our fork; likewise anyone can fork Redict so long as t
41.
by drewdevault 2y ago
This is a common misconception and source of fear/uncertainty/doubt regarding copyleft licenses. It's true that, the stronger the copyleft license, the more obligations it imposes on companies, and the AGPL is perhaps the mos
42.
by drewdevault 2y ago
> Copyleft is a string. The default would be complete permissiveness. I have answered a similar line of questioning before. Arguing strongly for permissive licenses is arguing for a kind of passive freedom which presents as freedom from
43.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Yes, I realize I worded this poorly. I emphasized this point because this is what makes it non-free/not meet the Open Source Definition; you cannot retain exclusive right to commercialization. But I realize that was not actually someth
44.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Codeberg was chosen over other candidates because it has a workflow similar to GitHub, to ease the transition for the existing community. In my opinion, we're going through a big shake-up anyway and there's no better time than now
45.
by drewdevault 2y ago
>So I'm clear though - if I wrote a SAAS product tomorrow that under the covers used Redis, I'm OK, but if I spun up a bunch of servers and offered managed Redis as a product, I would need to pay? That's the pitch of the l
46.
by drewdevault 2y ago
They exist to serve the bottom line, and if the bottom line is best served by evaluating and approving the LGPL license (a trivial task, as it is broadly understood and the compliance requirements are negligible for most users), then that&#
47.
by drewdevault 2y ago
It's worth noting that the Linux Foundation is a commercial consortium and the companies behind Valkey contribute over $1M to its annual budget.
48.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Redict is binary compatible with Redis Modules, including RedisJSON, out of the box, so you can keep using it no problem.
49.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Note the careful use of private modifications as not requiring disclosure of the source code. You only have to include source in the very specific situation of building Redict and providing it in compiled form to customers directly. Like,
50.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Substantial portions of Redis were written by AWS and Google. People are upset because Redis is a collaborative project with many people working on it and Redis Ltd wants the sole right to commercialize the work of an entire community. LW
51.
by drewdevault 2y ago
LGPL is a pretty weak copyleft license and was chosen specifically because it is amenable to almost all present-day commercial use-cases for Redis. You don't have to publish your changes to Redict in most situations, commercial or no
52.
Redict 7.3.0, a copyleft fork of Redis, is now available(redict.io)
199 points by drewdevault 2y ago|167 comments
53.
by drewdevault 2y ago
It depends on a lot of factors. Generally people provision infrastructure according to its expected usage, and to overprovision is wasteful.
54.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Hey, this is really not how it went down and I'm kind of upset that it's being read this way. The premise of Redict is to create a fork which is driven by a grassroots community rather than a commercial interest, and which is safe
55.
by drewdevault 2y ago
Yes, we agreed amongst ourselves (Redict) that the right approach was to focus on long-term maintenance and reliability.
56.
by drewdevault 2y ago
What are your concerns with LGPL?
57.
by drewdevault 3y ago
The only genuine path to sustainability is reduction. There is no sustainable way to have disposable single-use packaging that you throw away when the bottle empties. Glass bottles with a deposit to incentivize bottle return, following whic
58.
by drewdevault 3y ago
Google isn't trying to sell you their internal systems. This is a bullshit AI hype bubble advert masquerading as an academic paper. Bet you 10 bucks it doesn't get through peer review (or isn't even submitted for peer revie
59.
by drewdevault 3y ago
Ah, yes, the free market is the unquestionable discussion-ending answer to all things good and moral in life. All pleasure in life shall be allocated to the highest bidder, and that shall be good and just according to the inalienable princi
60.
by drewdevault 3y ago
Here's the latest spec, with the "draft" watermark removed just for you: https://files.catbox.moe/fesgvi.pdf Its absence on the website is collateral damage from the SourceHut outage a couple of weeks ago whi

More ›