Keep the comments on-topic. If you do not like any production-related aspects of the video, there are plenty of other videos on this platform that you can watch instead.
Amazon is the worst offender in abusing open source projects. They profit off open source software and contribute nothing back, basically treating them as infinite money glitch.
@@user-ws7kp1yh9lI don’t think that’s offending open source. Open source is supposed to be free for everyone. If you wanted to force donations then that would be more akin to a business. If you don’t like corporate, projects can also add a clause to their licence that says that for profit orgs are banned from using the software. But most open source projects do not do so because I do not think that is the spirit of open source. If I make stuff open source is because I want it to give it for free, and if someone then makes a fortune out of it, good for them.
@@user-ws7kp1yh9lNow don’t take me wrong, donations are great and I think that it is completly legitimate to avoid amazon products if you feel like they do not give back their fair share to the community. But I just wanted to remark that when you make something for free for everyone, well it is free for even the people you may dislike.
When a company takes a community open source project closed source, they are stealing the labor of every community developer who contributed. Every community FOSS project should have a poison pill against this in its license.
That's exactly the point of the GPL licenses. If you don't want companies to monetize and restrict future versions of your code, you have to publish under those licenses.
It has been stolen. They've taken BSD licensed code contributed by outside authors, and unilaterally relicensed it. The BSD license requires that you preserve the license in all source code and binary distributions.
Oh nice I just saw the announcement for Valkey! Good move by the Linux foundation, having a project that is supported by them will make the migration even easier.
I find the content very interesting but the fact that you read your script with the same melody over and over again is very tiring for me. I would suggest you read it in a more natural way. I was not able to finish the video, the monotone it's taxating for me. I hope you take this in the way I intend it, as constructive criticism. I think you have good content but the artificial way it's delivered may be hindering the growth of your channel. Thank you! :)
Time and time again it shows that shareholders of public companies will destroy everything in the name of short-term profits. RIP I'll look out for a fork or an alternative now.
This is more about investors in the company, rather than public companies. Is the Reddis company publicly traded? The presence of VC investors is what happens before an IPO and it looks like this licensing issue is an effort to tweak the fundamentals of the financial trajectory of the company and create a story they can tell potential investors/buyers of public shares. Of course, this could backfire on them, especially if there is litigation pending from other contributors. Heck, I have to wonder if Amazon or other corporate contributors would bring such a claim? That's just the sort of thing you don't want to have to disclose on your S-1 SEC filing (if they're contemplating an IPO in the US public markets.) In this case, the publicly traded companies seem to have actually supported open-source development of redis, so I'm not sure you want to throw stones at them..
@@lmamakos This is not strictly aimed at this Redis debacle, but generally what I'm seeing from the "customer" side perspective is, that most of the times a company goes public or is in the process of doing so, their entire goal as a company shifts. They are often no longer interested in sustainable growth and creating the best and and most quality product for customers (their primary source of income) while treating their employees right, but instead "increase shareholder value" at any cost (be it by cutting corners on product quality or squeezing out maximum productivity with as little employees as possible, creating high turnover and layoffs). All the while they try so squash all attempts at unionization. Many times these shareholders are so disconnected from the customer base of their companies that they try to implement utterly ridiculous schemes to make more money into the products, only hurting customer trust and retention. They might actually do well financially, but any respect from end-customers will be gone. The current state of the Triple-A games industry (for example Activision Blizzard or Embracer group) is a good current example. And with the upcoming AI tech these groups/companies are trying to get rid of more talent in favor of cheap generated AI assets, leading to soulless, bad products and then in turn bad sales. It's a downward spiral for many companies if it continues like this IMHO.
Be careful. With major forks like this, backdoors can be very easily added. Amazon and Microsoft already made sure to put a few in for their hosted services, but... Getting them implemented in opensource projects is more tricky, unless a great opportunity like this one comes along.
I think this video is missing the point, AWS gave the finger to redis and destroyed their business. They had to change the license... its big companies like amazon that are destroying open source and not small open source companies that rely on donations to get by
It's the outline. As someone who has programmed a text outline generator, it's easy to run into edge cases where the line starts folding on itself when you make it too thick in narrow curves, making it look exactly like in the video.
GPL does nothing to prevent someone from modifying your code, hosting it in the cloud and selling it to people. All without releasing their changes. It's one of the major loopholes with the GPL, which is intended to be closed by the AGPL but that license isn't very popular.
@@rbrosz It's not really a loop hole because you cannot prevent others from copying your source code building it and using it for free, in short you can only own the binary, the source code is open for everyone to see and use.That's why companies like Microsoft avoids code with GPL license in their code base like a plague.
To note there isn't any legal certainty they can even do the relicense without being sued by previous contributors for breach of the BSD license and copyright or having to remove all code contributed by third parties which haven't agreed to the change. Imagine in the abstract: no "license" would even be worth the imaginary paper it's written on, if any user was legally able to just wipe its characters away from the code at any time before overwriting some 'preferred' one on top; and this is what Redis has just done. To whit this is why a lot of other corporate OSS projects require CLAs before committing code, so that they can pull a license change with no legal repercussions.
now correct me if i am wrong but i was always under the impression that relicensing is a pretty involved process that needs a lot of permissions or is that license specific
(Again i am not a lawyer) but it definitely depends on the licenses. as far as I understand it, for the 3-Clause BSD it generally isn’t too bad because it’s a pretty permissive license. All you need to to is keep the BSD License notice with the code that was committed under BSD. What a lot of commercial open source projects do these days is make contributors sign CLAs that basically say that the maintainers are allowed to relicense it. This is also done because it allows the maintainers to offer the software under a non-copyleft license (if GPL or AGPL is used for the open source project) to corporations who do not want to use copyleft-software for legal reasons
It depends on a few things. Do you own all the copyright on the code? You can't change the license on code you don't own. So community created projects can be hard to relicense. If you don't own everything, do you know who contributed what? You can follow a path of replacing contributions of people you can't find or don't agree to relicense. Is the old license compatible with the new one? If the old license has zero requirements that aren't met by combining it with new components under your new license, then you don't need to change the license at all, merely use the new license for new and changed elements, and over time the work will be increasingly covered by the new license. In the interim, no one can use the total work without agreeing to both. There are of course other possible factors but I don't think you are looking fir a complete treatise on copyright and licensing.
Oh and since REDIS was bsd licensed, which is quite permissive, we are looking at the last scenario here. They don't have to change the license on any existing code. They did fail anyway (i guess they are idiots) by simply removing the existing terms. Theoretically this could have legal ramifications but I'm doubtful it will amount to much.
@@bufferhead_ nope, it purely depends on the copyright holders of the code, since redis has a CLA, that means redis can at any point just take the code and run for the hills. If they hadn't had a CLA, they would need to have an agreement with every contributor Which is just democracy: if anyone at all says "no", you can still do it, but legally you MUST remove the code that was not agree upon, and re-implement the feature, by someone who before a court can prove that they never saw the original code (if there's patent involved they also have to prove that they had never heard of the patent), although that does hinge on it being discovered and then sued for copyright and/or patent infringement, yet it is still a risk many companies would rather avoid, so the question boils down to "are we willing to lose this feature in exchange of the license change?", and that very question is the reason many companies employ CLAs, so should the desire to change come up, they just can
Thank you for the content, I have a piece of feedback. One thing that annoyed me a lot is how you keep emphasizing on random words at the end of every other sentence. I assume the audio is created by AI, I don't know how to explain it, but it's very difficult to focus on the actual topic with the strange emphasis on arbitrary words.
For the love of all that is holy, please fix whatever is in charge of the font outline of your subtitles. The tiny spaces around every goddamn dot are driving me insane for some reason
In court, words mean what the most expensive law firm wants them to mean. Ambiguous language just makes that a little easier for the high-end sheisters.
The silver lining in all of this is KeyDB is in fact much better and will be backed by the Valkey project the Linux foundation is spinning up. Redis is legacy now.
Actually, dual licensing isn't meaning it's not open source anymore, it's only saying that it is giving the possibility to be close software for big companies, as MySQL did and other products which are dual-licensed and none is worrying about it.
An open source community destroyed by a call center guy lol. Any company they try and extort for money isn't going to have a problem getting hostile contributors on the stand if you they feel like suing.
I just want to say this out loud. I hope Amazon joins Redis open source contributors (now former) and creates their own version of Redis... Or something of that sort.
I don't get what's supposedly so bad about this, redis being open source meant the source code was available for anyone to use, and it still very much is? afaik GPL already required you to post source code of any derivative works of GPL licenced software and this change just applies the same concept to "software as a service" type products that technically exploited a loophole by never actually distributing anything isn't it a good thing that megacorporations like Amazon now have to abide by the same rules, or pay, to essentially just redistribute the same software to 3'd party customers?
I see the problem, and I don't condone it in any ways - But the BSD license explicitly allows for sub-licensing, and/or take the original code, and re-license it any ways you see fit. Something you can acknowledge by realising the entirety of the iOS was based upon Free BSD (BSD license) ...
I can imagine a future when one can ask an AI to mimic the functionality of any system and that way software will become basically free and the companies that produce things like Redis will have no customers
AI is very far from that, if you let an AI produce code for you, all you get is a mess. You'll probably spend the same time if not more debugging it and refractoring compared to writing code yourself. AI is only half decent even for boilerplate code.
@bufferhead_ I should have checked as well, the information is unclear, the person I got the information from couldn't back it up either. Considering AWS is backing thr Linux foundation Redis Fork, they probably use the code to some extend.
From my point of view this new redis is based on the previous redis (highly doubt they rewrote it) and therefore the company itself has to follow the bsd license, since any contribution of people was under that license. But I'm not a lawyer.
Currently that's true, but I image they will push new versions with security patches or something like this, and after sometime force companies to use to close the gap
Redis is amazing, honestly, and the license change makes me sad. I have used Redis for a number of solution types: cache, session store, pub sub, queue, GeoSpatial data, it’s legitimately wild how useful it is. They got Jeffed pretty hard by AWS Elasticache, I understand their pain, but it’s still unfortunate. Redis Labs was where everything went sort of sideways. As it has ever been.
I don't develop any proprietary software, so I don't have issue with the SSPL, in fact it's kinda cool how hostile the SSPL is to proprietary software,
@@despareint That's true for just about any company regardless of license. They own the copyright, so they can do whatever they want with the code in the future. For projects accepting public contributions, this is still true if they require contributors to sign an agreement that the company owns the code, which many do. MySQL is an example of this with a GPL open source product and proprietary-licensed closed source product.
@@rbrosz Redis didn't require contributors to sign anything, so the contributors still own the copyright also, you can't simply take the contributions and run away
I'm not totally by the framing of this debacles as something totally foreign to OSS funding. To me it looks like you'll have an hard time to ever make money if your opensource project becomes successful and widely adopted.
True it comes down to support and maintenance costs. Even though you are offloading the contributions to the community. If redis was under a non free license from the beginning it wouldn't have been possible to take it over. That's open for you and free dom
@@Bozebo Postgres is great, but it's not an in memory DB like Redis. I'd much rather use Redis for a producer/consumer buffer. MariaDB is a fork of MySQL which started after Oracle bought MySQL; it was possible because MySQL was open source. It's maintained by many of the same people that wrote MySQL. I'm wondering if someone will fork Redis with the old license and keep working on it...but I guess that's a lot of history for a short comment.
Key/value stores are much simpler than full-blown db engines. There are (and have been) drop-in redis replacements. Some are mentioned in the vid. I'm sure there will be an old liscense fork, but it probably won't survive due to all the available alternatives.
Of course every open source project will going to used this strategy, like mongo db, teraform, and other in the past. The reason is community is toxic, not enough money to kept it reasonable maintenance with enterprise support at open version one, and other competitors or company used it freely without the license consideration. Is funny to see linux foundation who do legally steal the other community project and rename it.
If a developer costs 400.000 $ a year the company should URGENTLY move to an other country! Even in the very expensive Zurich in Switzerland a developer will cost 3x less, and the taxes are 1/2 of California! For 200.000 $ all-in every freelancer will come to work for this company! The rest of Europe is even cheaper. A software developer would swim in money!
