Valkey Celebrates Its First Stable Release As Open-Source Redis Fork

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Valkey Celebrates Its First Stable Release As Open-Source Redis Fork

Last month the Linux Foundation along with industry stakeholders such as AWS, Google Cloud, Snap, Oracle, and others formed Valkey as an open-source Redis fork following Redis moving to Redis Source Available License v2 and SSPL v1 licensing. Today they've released Valkey 7.2.5 as the first stable release for this open-source Redis fork...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/Valkey-First-Stable-Release

[hf_139]

This is why you have to go for a GPL license since the beginning.

Both Apache and BSD licenses are just seen as free labour for corporations.
And if you later decide to change it, because the corporations earn lots of money because of you while contributing nothing back, they will not start to pay you, but instead fork your project and crush you.
Suddenly they will have the money necessary to run the development... but against you.... because they can't allow someone to stop being a cuckold. They can't risk other projects to do the same.

Choose your license wisely.
If you want to be an OpenSource project, and leave yourself the option to do dual licensing, do GPL.
If you want to be the ultimate loser who literally works for Google, Amazon and Oracle for free, do BSD.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

I can't believe the Redis folks were even dumb enough to attempt this after witnessing what happened with Hashicorp's Terraform last year. If your open source product is very important in the enterprise space and you dick around with the licensing, your shit is getting forked. Multi-billion dollar megacorps each donating a few salaried engineers isn't a hard sell.

[spicfoo]

This is why you have to go for a GPL license since the beginning.

It wouldn't have helped in this. Redis Labs wants to make money from hosted offerings. Other cloud providers are undercutting them and GPL doesn't make a difference there. These open source projects all want to go with more permissive licensing to enable broad adoption and then turn around and make the licensing more restrictive after a few years of getting some large customers. We have seen this with MongoDB, Hashicorp and so many others.

[RAINFIRE]

It wouldn't have helped in this. Redis Labs wants to make money from hosted offerings. Other cloud providers are undercutting them and GPL doesn't make a difference there. These open source projects all want to go with more permissive licensing to enable broad adoption and then turn around and make the licensing more restrictive after a few years of getting some large customers. We have seen this with MongoDB, Hashicorp and so many others.

Says you in your opinion. I 100% disagree. GPLv3 or AGPLv3 all the way imho. GNU & FOSS are still a thing whether you like it or not. Don't make me break out my freedom and privacy hashtags...

[hf_139]

It wouldn't have helped in this. Redis Labs wants to make money from hosted offerings. Other cloud providers are undercutting them and GPL doesn't make a difference there. These open source projects all want to go with more permissive licensing to enable broad adoption and then turn around and make the licensing more restrictive after a few years of getting some large customers. We have seen this with MongoDB, Hashicorp and so many others.

Nothing forces those large corporations to leech off of those OpenSource projects. If they would contribute back or donate accordingly, none of those projects would feel the need to try to change licensing. Nobody would take that risky move when not needed. They have to beg for 20 Cent donations, while multi billion $$$ corporations run on their software.

GPL is avoided by big corporations. Some of them (like the whole financial sector) even automatically reject any GPL licensed code.
It is much more demanding and they can't leech off of it and modify it to their liking. They have to play by the rules.

It also makes dual licensing models much more attractive. Like Qt does it.
OpenSource for everyone, but if some huge corporation doesn't want to play by the GPL, they gotta pay for another license.

https://www.qt.io/licensing/open-source-lgpl-obligations

Works fine for them. Corporations actually pay. Even thought that they could use the GPL version just fine, they decide to pay for the commercial license.
Nobody would pay for a qt license if it would be under BSD.

[spicfoo]

Says you in your opinion. I 100% disagree. GPLv3 or AGPLv3 all the way imho. GNU & FOSS are still a thing whether you like it or not. Don't make me break out my freedom and privacy hashtags...

You can disagree but you are conflating GPL and AGPL and not explaining how GPL helps with cloud hosting providers undercutting upstream hosted offerings. Break out whatever you want.

[spicfoo]

It also makes dual licensing models much more attractive. Like Qt does it.
OpenSource for everyone, but if some huge corporation doesn't want to play by the GPL, they gotta pay for another license.

https://www.qt.io/licensing/open-source-lgpl-obligations

Works fine for them. Corporations actually pay. Even thought that they could use the GPL version just fine, they decide to pay for the commercial license.
Nobody would pay for a qt license if it would be under BSD.

Yes, GPL works fine for dual licensing. It doesn't help with cloud providers because GPL only triggers on source distribution which cloud providers don't do.

[yoshi314]

forking is easy, but will there be any new features coming out in those free forks?

[spicfoo]

forking is easy, but will there be any new features coming out in those free forks?

That's likely given the contributors involved has been involved with upstream before the fork.