this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
49 points (100.0% liked)

Programming

423 readers
3 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is it really cheaper for the mega-corps to have their own fork instead of pay Redis for a license? Or are they just capitalizing from loud open-source advocates who are OK working for free for mega-corps because they are principled?

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] RonSijm@programming.dev 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Probably, AWS and Google probably have millions of existing customers using Redis. And AWS and Google are not going to be paying for it themselves of course, but just pass the costs on to their customers.

So they can stick to the old official Redis version for a while, before the license change happened, but at some point someone might find a vulnerability, and patch it in the official Redis, and then everyone that's stuck on the old version is fucked - it's a bit of a ticking time-bomb to be stuck on an old version.

So then AWS and Google customers can decide

  • "I want to use the latest version of official Redis, and pay x per month per Redis cache" (if the new license allows that)
  • Or "AWS doesn't support a free Redis anymore, but competitor does, so I'm just gonna migrate my infra to a different cloud"

So if they already switch to an open-license fork they can preemptively mitigate most of those risks

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

That is a different perspective I hadn't considered. Thank you 🙂

The megacorps will have to pay for the development of their new fork now - or not, if they can find suckers to do the work for them for free, but I doubt that'll happen. How much that'll be and how much the customers using the new fork will bring in will probably determine the health and existence of the fork. Unless of course the corps use "fuck you" money to kill redis.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[–] FanchFilingCabinet@lemy.lol 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's worth remembering a lot of these megacorps do employ people directly to work on FOSS projects. Here's a quick and lazy example involving AWS
https://redis.com/blog/redis-core-team-update/ but Red Hat and others do the same.

I'm not a fan, and it feels almost as if by employing and embedding people in these projects they look to exert control over them. Realistically, I don't see that as any different than if they were paying money directly for the same control. Except this way FOSS still has benefits after the license change.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd say paying money is not as effective at influencing a project as embedding developers is.

[–] FanchFilingCabinet@lemy.lol 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

In terms of bang for the buck, I'd absolutely agree. It's only when a company fully depends on the income of a single client, or closely aligned few, that this becomes a question.