| ▲ | voidfunc 9 hours ago |
| I have yet to hear a single positive story about this Redis Inc... it's like a giant company full of only assholes. Story after story is just "wow, these people all suck" |
|
| ▲ | paxys 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Redis the project was essentially taken over by a company that had nothing to do with its development. Salvatore Sanfilippo (antirez) started Redis and developed it by himself from 2009 to 2015, gaining massive popularity and building a large community in the process. It was FOSS the entire time. A separate VC-backed company called Garantia Data used to make money by offering a hosted version of Redis. That company changed its name to Redis Labs in 2014 (and eventually just Redis), likely themselves violating antirez's Redis trademark at the time. They then hired antirez in 2015 and started officially sponsoring the project. From there began a slow transformation of Redis from a community run FOSS project to a proprietary locked down service. The company also managed to acquire full rights of the Redis trademark and project stewardship from antirez after hiring him and then finally kicked him out in 2020. |
| |
| ▲ | orochimaaru 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They paid antirez and I'm sure compensated him for his efforts on redis. I haven't heard antirez being "kicked out". There may have been a separation of ways when redis inc. decided to not be truly open source, but I haven't heard of them being abusive or unethical with antirez. So yes, antirez started it. He owned the trademark and gave it off to redis inc. and was compensated for it. I am not seeing why this has to be controversial. I don't like what redis is doing. But they're within legal rights. | | |
| ▲ | nine_k 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, nobody says that there's something illegal here. Were it so, Redis is high enough profile project for someone to take a legal action. But this is a takeover that is slowly draining the value from the community and directing it to private pockets. E.g. Redis is now source-available. There are still compatible alternatives: https://valkey.io/ (C, a direct Redis fork) or https://keydb.dev/ (C++, an evolved Redis fork), both BSD-licensed. I wish RethinkDB was more alive :-\ | |
| ▲ | paxys 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No one is saying what they did was illegal, but you'd have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to make a case for it being ethical and in the spirit of open source. |
| |
| ▲ | bigcat12345678 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/13670 Created a PR to add this into the context. Feel free to comment on it. Also, calling other bystanders to add other missing pieces to the history. | | |
| ▲ | RestartKernel 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That seems inappropriate to me for a README — at least in its current, somewhat inflammatory, form. Is the commit itself an act of protest or is this a genuine attempt at getting it pulled? |
| |
| ▲ | jjtheblunt 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | excellent summary (not kidding); thank you for it because i hadn't understood it until what you wrote | |
| ▲ | seneca 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The company also managed to acquire full rights of the Redis trademark and project stewardship from antirez after hiring him How did that happen? He must have given/sold it to them, right? I remember him making an announcement that he was done with Redis and stepping away from involvement. | | |
| ▲ | paxys 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Impossible to know as an outsider. They could have tricked him with false promises ("we'll take good care of the project and always put the community first, trust us"). Or he could have decided that the check was big enough and not really cared beyond that. | |
| ▲ | reconditerose 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The only public record I've seen him talking about it was in https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey/issues/544, where he mentioned having sold the copyright. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cameronh90 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| PE/VC-backed bait-and-switch takeovers of "open source" projects have cost me a significant amount of time and money over the past few years. My rule of thumb now is that I now consider any project that has a pricing page OR requires copyright assignment/CLA to a for-profit company to be effectively proprietary and just using open source as a marketing technique. That doesn't mean I won't touch it, but like with proprietary software, I'll evaluate it against the risk that the price will probably be jacked up in the future. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | The important part is the contract the company signs for you. Contacts generally are enforceable in court and lawyers know of standard provisions for weird situations (what if the company goes bankrupt) QT has contracts with KDE around the open source version which gives KDE peace of mind. I use QT in a commercial product - we have some useful contract terms with QT that are not public and I can't talk about them. |
|
|
| ▲ | MortyWaves 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Shame because I remember the original author being quite well regarded on places like here and Reddit. |
| |
|
| ▲ | acedTrex 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They have some of the same people from the elastic license debacle so this makes sense. |
|
| ▲ | karmakaze 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I agree. At the same time, they're just 'doing their job' working at a for-profit company controlling the brand of open-source (core?) software. |
| |
| ▲ | idle_zealot 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, you can simultaneously condemn individual behavior and the system that incentivizes it. Both are bad in this case. | | |
| ▲ | karmakaze 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | My point is that the blame is on the system moreso than its expected outcome. |
|
|
