I imagine there is quite a large, quiet fraction (majority) of users who were the same way.
Not to say it’s not an important discussion!
Not to say it’s not an important discussion!
Several major linux distros transparently switched to Valkey and the users are none-the-wiser. On Fedora, for example, doing `sudo dnf install redis` just installs Valkey.
It is much worse for my package manager to install a totally different software, than for my package manager to install a new version of the software I asked for that now has a different license. Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.
If the distro wants to do something, they can throw a warning up saying "this package is now licensed with the SSPL, would you still like to install? Try installing valkey for a BSD-licensed alternative". But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.
No, you don't just randomly have a different package installed one day, at least on major distros. The next distro release will include the new package. If for any reason you care, you can always go install the other one you want instead as well, it just won't be part of the default package repos.
Generally, the replacement packages are 1:1 with the one they are replacing, and/or compatibility shims are included during the install. Its seamless. Also, generally the package manager does tell you what it's installing.
The major Linux distros are very careful about this stuff. The two largest have huge enterprise user bases, and it's never been a problem.
Many of the Linux distros are extremely opinionated on what goes into their default package repositories - it's a major reason why you choose certain distros. You are delegating all of this concern about packages, compatibility, bug/security fixes, and licenses and whatever to the maintainers of the distro. They are very careful not to break existing systems, and aren't going to surprise you one day with a major disruptive change. For them to replace Redis, for instance, with Valkey, it's going to be on the next major os release, it'll be a drop in replacement (all Redis commands continue to work, etc), and you'll have an opportunity to see this change while installing packages. This isn't "shoot from the hip" npm style stuff...
It's also not a free and open source software license. This is disqualifies software using it from being in the main repos for various distros.
Seems like some sort of user prompting could be acceptable, though.
Except it's a fork, so it is what you asked for. The name changed, sure, and there's a different governance arrangement. But pretty much the entire point of using a distro is offloading decisions such as which developers and repositories to trust onto the maintainers.
If you want to make those decisions for yourself then you should obviously be cloning and building from source. I'm not just saying that - I myself do exactly that in cases where it matters to me.
If you don't care about license purity then perhaps don't use a distro that explicitly filters on that?
1: https://github.com/redis/redis/commit/0b34396924eca4edc52446...
Using a distro that handles things your way is your privilege. I assume most people who install packages care about the functionality they provide, not the brand name - so it seems like a fair default for distros that aim to appeal to broad user bases imo.
This is an amusing example of "the duality of man," having just finished reading a bunch of comments to the effect of "the user should have the ultimate say as to what apps they can install from the App Store" in the Apple thread.
I use a distro because I don't have the time or energy to do all of that for myself. It's a purely voluntary arrangement unlike the iOS/Android duopoly that modern society is increasingly built on top of.
Also, what happens if functionality drifts?
You're thinking of it as if upstream is primary. Actually, when you use a distribution package, the distribution has the final say over the contents of the package.
Second, I don't know about you, but continuing to function in the same way is my primary need for systems I am managing. When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before. Switching binary names breaks that promise.
My setup has scripts that do things like check that a process named "redis" is running... this will break if the process is now called "valkey"
I feel like all the commenters live in some kind of crazy alternate world where purity of license matters more than stability of systems.
But where do you put the blame?
The distro for making that change, or the redis company for breaking your software stack?
For me and my company, though, it just doesn't matter. We don't use redis in a way that would ever come into conflict with the license, so it really doesn't affect me. Redis didn't break my software stack with the license change. I am sorry, but I just can't get up the energy to care that much about which license they choose. If it helps them make money, fine go for it. I can't root that hard for the side Amazon is on.