Linux Foundation marshals support for open source alternative to Redis

Cloud giants AWS, Google, and Oracle have come out in support of a Linux Foundation open source fork of Redis, the popular in-memory database frequently used as a cache, following changes to its licensing. Last month, Redis confirmed it was shifting its main key-value store system to a dual-license approach, imposing far more …

[b0llchit]

Redis: cache in, cash out, {cash,cache} gone.

[Doctor Syntax]

Cash cleared.

[Anonymous Coward]

> "The Linux Foundation chose community over sponsors,"

> AWS, Google, Snap Inc, Ericsson, and Oracle are joining the Linux Foundation in backing a fork of the Redis code.

This is who The Linux Foundation means when it talks about "community".

For an alternative, there is also Redict, a fork by a community of humans.

[JoeCool]

Or, looking at it the other way

in need of a cost reduction hammer, those big swingers suddenly have a purposeful need for open source.

[Mark 65]

Redict? Get f*cked twice?

[TVU]

As System Initiative Co-founder Adam Jacob wrote on X/Twitter:

“Congratulations! You now have a competitor [Valkey] that’s well funded, ships a trustable product at $0, and will obviously be what cloud providers use to compete".

Thus the cynical $$$ grabbing move by Redis has now spectacularly backfired.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there better descriptions than "cynical" for what Redis is doing.

Presumably what they're doing is in line with the wishes of all the contributing copyright holders. I mean, if it's not, then the dissenting copyright holders are going to be rightly miffed. But if all the rightful (legal, if not moral) owners of the code are content to go this way, then I say good luck to them. Everyone has a living to earn, and they're choosing to earn this way. The most that the rest of us can reasonably say about the matter is thanks for all the lolz, and that perhaps they're being a touch naive... If this transition is inconvenient because a bunch of people are now having to rewrite their own systems due sudden and unanticipated license incompatibility, well a purist might argue that that has to be balanced up against the years of convenient free-use.

Now what RedHat are doing with Linux; that's cynical. They don't own the code they're messing around with.

I can understand that, if previous contributors have contributed and assigned their copyright to Redis, then they may feel somewhat narked. However, them's the rules. There are other organisations that encourage contributors to assign their copyright to the organisation for the good of the project. One such example is GNU Radio. They basically won't fully accept a contribution unless you do actually assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation. Now, whilst that may be an organisation as pure as the driven snow today, who knows what will happen over time. The voting members can do whatever they vote to do with the assets the own.

The important thing is, if you want to control what happens to your code, it has to remain your code.