> I expect distributions like Debian, and Ubuntu by proxy, will move away from having a redis .deb as well.
What about this change indicates that? This sounds like fearmongering, the new licenses really shouldn't affect this use case?
What about this change indicates that? This sounds like fearmongering, the new licenses really shouldn't affect this use case?
most Linux distributions take free software/open source pretty seriously, and will not ship random proprietary things (at least) as part of the main distribution.
the new redis license is clearly not open source/free software, and so new versions won't be in Debian or Fedora etc. since it's a network daemon, no one is going to want to keep an ancient unsupported version and I doubt any distribution packager will want to maintain a fork, and so redis will be removed and at best a maintained fork will replace it.
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#the...
The new licensing scheme effectively excludes redis from most of the open ecosystem, by cascading network effects from things like this. In this case, if you're building a package, if you pick redis, you've excluded yourself from distribution in many major distros.
Ditto for many other similar effects.
It's not fear-mongering. It's following laws and policies.
Plus it’s basically unmaintained so the bugs will build up and the security burden is higher since upstream will stop making their security patches under the old license (which they especially state they will do in the FAQ).
Best either retired or migrated to a fork (for Debian)
- In surveys, the vast majority of Linux maintainers are paid
- Both I, and many other people I know, have spent most of their adult careers being paid to do open-source
I have no problem with developers who "choose to put food on the table over being part of their social club." I have a serious problem with developers who pull a bait-and-switch, and:
- get support from the open ecosystem to build out market share and technology; and promptly
- pull a bait-and-switch, and try to milk their supporters for $$$
I think the point Redis is missing is that SaaS relies on **trust**. SaaS is almost always a better deal in the short-term, but once you're wedded to a vendor, you're relying on them to not extort you or hurt you. A SaaS vendor can potentially:
- discontinue a product with zero days notice
- totally ignore security, leading to all your data landing online
- raise prices 10x overnight, leaving you in an impossible situation
- "pivot" in all sorts of other ways which disappear your business
A major reason for doing things yourself is business continuity and risk management. Once a vendor has done something like this, it's a good sign they'll do it again. After a vendor pulls a trick like this, I wouldn't consider relying on them even for proprietary work I do.
(Footnote: This is also why I would never use Google's cloud or Oracle's cloud; there's a track record of business-killing moves).