The Redis Rug Pull Is Worse Than You Think 

😭😂

GET OUT

I see what you did here 😂😂😂

Your comment rocks!

😂

Simultainously it's the best and worst name possible...

I would have gone with Redat

Chud cuck idk 😶😶

New number, rudis?

Rudeus (greyrat)

ElasticRedis*

They were not using redis anyway so what gives. The Redis Stack always had those licenses.

Elasticache exists.

​@@anujupadhyay11 Exactly. For years. And it's not redis.

​@@anujupadhyay11 Fun fact. Azure is hosting the original Redis and they already pay and contribute even if they could do that for nothing.

What are some of the OSS alternatives in this space?

can you list some?

​@@artrix909keydb

​@@artrix909KeyDB

​@@MrJfergsKeyDB is still BSD, Microsoft recently launched a new cache-store software Garnet, which is also compatible with existing Redis clients.

If I can't fork Redis and change the license to a more restrictive one then I believe neither can RedisLabs

​@@phyphorYou are allowed fork and redistribute redis under a more restrictive license, it was using bsd, which isn't copyleft. What's important is that all old contributions are still licensed under bsd, just not newer ones.

@actualwafflesenjoyer Yeah I was under the impression bsd also had the "in perpetuity and non revocable" parts that other open source licenses have. If that turns out to be that redis can revoke the bsd license for any code they wrote, it certainly would put in to question the validity of bsd as an open source license.

They can't change the license of already transmitted data, but they can retroactively change the license in the repository to apply to the repository and the archived older versions they distribute. In that case you could keep using the one you're already using, but a new deployment would fall under the new license.

@@ronijuppiRevocation is not free. According to copyright law, they would have to compensate all affected users in order to be able to revoke the licence, totalling to billions of dollars.

To be fair, the amount of times he's right is kind of small but not small enough.

Just looking at the page for that and, would you look at that, a red, er, rhombus, extolling the virtues? Very subtle 😅 Much smooth.

You had me until C#

Wow c# cool

@@fishynicky_It's honestly quite neat the performance they are able to reach using C# and it's higher safety guarantees being a GC'ed language.

@@EraYaN They can also do native compilation of the code. If that makes a bigger difference. It is all about how you scale it.

Regarding Qt, there is actually an agreement between the KDE free Qt foundation and the Qt company. If Qt ever stops developing their open source licensed version of the Qt Framework, the Free Qt foundation has the legal right to release Qt under a BSD style or other OSS license.

Well, we are free the fork the versions prior. Feel reasonable

theres a reason why BSD and MIT/X is known as the cuck license

You can get around that with CLA, specifically Copyright Transfer Agreement. The project is still open-source and available for everyone with GPL license, but to the makers/organization of the project, they own the full copyright, and can change it to commercial and non-free use, whether it is GPL licensed or not.

GPL doesn't prevent the company from changing the license, it only makes it harder, a lot of GPL code-bases have you sign-over licensing rights to them explicitly to do this in the future.

It really is the only solution. Unlicense/MIT if you want as many people as possible to use your code with no expected compensation, (A)GPL if you actually want to build an open source community

GPL is incredibly restrictive, I'm a professional developer and I'm not exactly going to contribute to a project i cannot utilize in my own proprietary software, that doesn't compute on a fundamental level. The times I've contributed to gpl projects it has been on employers behalf not personally. It's simply a fact that we need a new vastly better license that cannot be stolen either by corporations or by digital communists via licensing shenanigans. Essentially it needs to protect against stallman viruses and corporations being required to publish modifications upstream, while allowing for use as a library instead of the ridiculous bs needing to fire it up as a separate process with huge overheads.

@@RiversJ it depends on the project, assuming Redis was GPL nothing would change until you redistribute it and then you'd have to give out the Redis source code if you modified it. Is that really an issue? Obviously if your business was a Redis fork yeah. I'd get the argument for libraries but services? Most devs won't be affected

@hecate6834 Forks aren't what I'm worried about. When i create free software, i actually want it to be free such that Nobody gets to steal the work without me getting the changes, repackaging it under more restrictive licensing i can't get the changes for upstream is the real world practical issue with GPLv3 At the same time, it really isn't free if you can't also use it as part of commercial software, I'm doing free to get a name for myself not to espouse my ideological views on economics, if you're doing it for money be honest and ask money for it like the rest of us. Most of the very best pieces of software on the planet are libraries, not applications which are dime a dozen, were being very restricted in application development precisely because we don't have a good license to share libraries. Yes i write library code atleast half the time, both abstract and also specific usecase solutions that require a lot of horrible bespoke crap to implement if you don't have deep domain knowledge today. When you write a piece of procedural feeling niche usecase code has almost certainly been solved by someone far better than you in the domain. But you can't have it even if they wanted to share it because they have no means to share it legally.

@@RiversJ CDDL is right there buddy. You still need to push modifications upstream etc but only on CDDL licensed software, you don't need to license everything it links with under CDDL nor distribute binaries under CDDL (proprietary friendly). Your concerns are why a lot of stuff isn't GPL, particularly in gaming related software. The best part about CDDL is it is incompatible with GPL so no one from the Stallman cult can do anything to CDDL code, but it does mean working around GPL if you are primarily on Linux.

It was not a joke though

Came here to say the same thing. 😂

Stage makeup is a thing!

Men can and very often do wear makeup lol. It isn't all eyeshadow and mascara and lipstick 😂 (but also men can also wear these and look sick as hell lmao)

I've been in several plays, so I've worn my share of makeup. And it makes sense that a RU-vidr would do that. But the fact remains... I didn't expect it.

GPL is most commonly used by companies like Oracle so that they can make something seem open source but then force companies to buy an alternately licensed version by intentionally making it difficult to use the software without violating the GPL.

​@@yahm0n that's completely irrelevant to the original point tbh. sure GPL can be misused, but permissive licenses also leave a community much more vulnerable to embrace, extend, extinguish. a tactic that has been much more harmful to open source than anything oracle has done. honestly the main issue open source faces today is how difficult it is to do open source while trying to make a living. it's extremely hard to get paid for doing open source, and needing to do extra work on top of a day-job quickly leads to burnout. and this benefits companies so much, it's free labor for them. open source got so big because permissive licenses made it easy for companies to use the labor of open source contributors without needing to do anything in return. and i dont think we can have a sustainable open source community if we cater only to that use-case. copyleft licenses at least make it hard to exploit labor like that.

@@sayaks12your first line makes your comment seem not worth reading tbh 🤣

@@yahm0n sorry for trying ig

@@sayaks12 maybe go the middle way, LGPL?

OpenTofu has released a stable release, and is gaining traction.

Yeah, the BSD allows for proprietary forks, so I don't get what all the fuzz is about. I mean, it is nice when people work on open source, but we are not entitled to it.

Yup. It's baked in to the capitalist model.

He's sponsored by planetscale. They are paying him for staying quiet, and not make a fuzz about it. He's even justifying planetscale's behavior

​@@araozuwhat did they even do

This is required for copyleft licenses like the GPL. However, it is not required for permisive licenses like MIT/Apache 2.0/BSD. That is because those licenses allow you to create proprietary forks of the project.

Also, many projects regardless of license choice, require a CLA (contributor license agreement) signed before they accept contributions - basically they own your stuff

Depends on the license. If you move away from GPL, for example, then yes.

Perfect timing, did they know?

The Garnet project officially started the year after antirez "left" Redis so there may have been some rationale there. However, Garnet is faster and offers Microsoft some added extensibility benefits. Depending on how large their internal install base is for Redis, or cache processes in general, there could be huge benefits to them and their customers from undertaking this project outside the licensing issues.

I wonder if anyone can recommend garnet as redis drop in replacement?

what did he say

@@Maniac-007he said “ligma”

"It's actually called GNU/Redis"

and what do you think about this change?

@@Tigregalis i'm abandoning Redis for my personal projects if they go through with this license change. As far as work, i'll speak with my colleagues next week. But if it's up to me, i'd straight up dump Redis based on the moral POV. Neither my company nor me mind paying for products or services but stealing thousands of commits from contributors is just not right

@@spicynoodle7419 RabbitMQ does me very well for messaging, they have v good documentation

​@@spicynoodle7419I mean your company could drop redis tomorrow for KeyDB and there would be a positive change with zero downside

@@spicynoodle7419 KeyDB claims to be faster drop-in replacement to Redis.

KeyDB is a great fork of Redis built by the Snap team

There's a big difference between forking a repo, and building your own community to sustain said forked repo.

classic, the illusion of "hey i can fork it so that solves the problem somehow" it makes it worse, there are already so many forks to prove that point. the community of the project is what matters. not that you forked it.

That's the fantasy of open source, imagining that the users that make money from their product will think to care about the project. Even though they rely on it lmao

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don’t love Amazon, but if they say “killing people is bad”, I have to side with them. If something has a permissive license, others are free to use that thing within the bounds of that license.

Yea it's weirdly familiar.

What is the better alternative? Use free closed-source software until they decide to start charging? At least with open source, you can fork the repository and create a free alternative.

Cause a lot of the time its a monopoly, so your alternative is spending couple of yours and thousands of dollars worth of coding making an alternative. That said most Open source projects can be forked, so you can just keep using the product from before license was changed. Unless you signed some kind of scam license. Basically the new license is a paid fork, and someone has to make the free fork. Basically this is same process as the main license owner (and likely main contributor) leaving the project. That said if you have built your thing on it, you have to pay the license, or start from scratch so its viable business strategy, and basically everyone is doing this rung pull from microsoft to hasbro and Dungeons and Dragons.

DCOs are much better anyway.

@@kevgoeswoof agreed

It does not sound like people did here. It did not stop the relicense from being done anyway...

fix pytorch without signing the cla lmao

@@martijnvdven yes. I figured that out afterwards as well. What a shame!

For open source developers, free software means open technology, iterative improvement, collaboration, and freedom from giant tech companies. For giant tech companies, free software means software they don't have to pay for, which leads to larger profits. I think it's completely fine to differentiate between the two.

Simple, don't make your product Open Source from the start if you think if has value. Bait and Switch is lame and just hurt the trust of legitimate individual users, small companies and contributors, rather than the big companies that have the resources of forking the previous source code.

​@@elchippewhy would you build a product that you don't think has value? I think the primary issue is that ways to monetize open source products is becoming progressively more difficult as platforms like AWS gobble them up and provide them as services. How is Redis expected to reasonably compete with that?

​@@Drenith By creating value add to the core software, for example adding multi threading to a pay version of the software. And there a many ways they could have monetize the software without screwing the community that is responsible for the success of the software in the first place. Now they not only have to compete with AWS but also with the forks developed by angry community members.

if you put it out as open source it should stay open source. this decision is worst for the contributors. i'd probably feel like they steal the code and then make money from it. Probably would have been better to build premium features in redis lab that are not open source (and then release it as open source maybe later).

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--8haHgfq2x4.html

time to break out that hibernate l2 cache provider!

it is nice to have a passion project. but that only works as a side project

@@willi1978 I've decided to go open core. All paid features would be real value additions, not simply the framework.

Don’t get so worked up about stuff, Theo.

Yes, but also no. First of all: In general all contributors must agree when changing the license as long as their contributed code is affected by the license change. But there are several ways to circumvent this issue: 1. Transfer the right to choose a license to the maintainers using contracts. Whether contributing guidelines with statements regarding transfer of ownership qualify as a contract is unclear to me and might vary from country to country or from judge to judge. However, most big FOSS that also serves a commercial market usually has a contributors license agreement that you accept by contributing. It's usually a file on the repo and some checkbox in the PR template. 2. Permissive licenses like MIT and BSD don't require the contributors agreement as they allow for non-FOS redistribution. There might be conditions to that, though, like mandatory copyright notices. 3. Some commercially developed FOSS does not accept contributions from the community as the maintainers understand FOSS more like a way of sharing their work than looking for help. So there actually might be no additional copyright owners. 4. Only relicense the code you own and/or progressively refactor out the code written by others. This is very tome consuming and a lot of work. Also, minor bug fixes (typos, syntax errors, simple guard clauses, ...) might actually not be considered fully qualified contributions in that scenario.

OSS licenses are a minefield so without being a lawyer, its hard to say. I don't see how Redis promised to remain under BSD forever, but I can see how it was implied. However, I would not expect contributors to be able to sue. Redis cannot retroactively change licenses for previous versions, so this will only be effective in the future. If you're not onboard with it, don't contribute to the project in the future. as for existing contributions, since they fall under the BSD license terms, these license terms presumably cover the use under their new dual licensing scheme

That is hardly an enforceable contract.

Everybody gets the same rights to the BSD licensed code. Anyone can make a closed source fork, which is essentially what this is. Naturally one or more forks will be created that maintain the BSD license, and considering the benefit of the BSD license is one of the best things about Redis, you can expect that a BSD licensed fork will eventually become more popular than the newly licensed Redis.

Sadly keydb dev is pretty slow as focused on needs of Snap Inc 😢

Kiss him then 😘

@@whoknows3679 my fiancée will kill me but 😗