Linux foundation is hosting it because that’s what it’s for.
Quite literally so. People tend to associate non-profits with charities, but there are others, like trade organizations. In US Internal Revenue Code charities are defined in 501(c)(3), while trade orgs are 501(c)(6).
Microsoft releases Redis reimplementation (possibly related).
Redis announces going closed source.
Microsoft announces that Azure users don’t have to worry as they are working with Redis (the company) and will continue to offer their hosted Redis as usual.
The other two major cloud providers say they’re forking and keeping it open source.
It seems that Redis stroke a deal with Microsoft who has seen it as a way to differentiate. Or it was so cheap they didn’t care. While the other two were either not informed or refused.
The LWN article the other day also did a good breakdown of the fact that “big money companies” were funding code contributions to Redis, to such a degree that they actually outnumbered commits by employees of “Redis Labs” (which itself was originally a third-party SaaS company unaffiliated with the actual official Redis project).
As far as I’m concerned, Redis has been renamed to Valkey, while Redis Ltd. has created a non-free fork and confusingly named it “Redis”.
The project with the license change is the fork, not the project which continues the original work under new management.
Industry participants, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud, Oracle, Ericsson, and Snap Inc. are supporting Valkey. They are focused on making contributions that support the long-term health and viability of the project so that everyone can benefit from it.
Should we consider Redis’s functionality frozen at 7.2? Any new contributions and functionality will be proprietary to a given fork and just further vendor lockin.
Exactly. Many of the commands added in the last few years had extremely situational usefulness.
On one hand you could say more feature doesn’t hurt, but IMO it’s actually the big downside of Redis over some simpler KV stores. It does so many different things with so many different performance characteristics that just exposing Redis to developers can be seen as risky as they might start to create slow queries and impact latency, etc.
And it’s even more worrying when you see that RedisLab is trying to chase the LLM thing. It’s one thing to be a swiss army knife, another to be a kitchen sink.
Tl;Dr big money companies are making their own fork of redis, and Linux foundation is hosting it because that’s what it’s for.
Quite literally so. People tend to associate non-profits with charities, but there are others, like trade organizations. In US Internal Revenue Code charities are defined in 501(c)(3), while trade orgs are 501(c)(6).
Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) org.
With a little bit more context:
Microsoft releases Redis reimplementation (possibly related).
Redis announces going closed source.
Microsoft announces that Azure users don’t have to worry as they are working with Redis (the company) and will continue to offer their hosted Redis as usual.
The other two major cloud providers say they’re forking and keeping it open source.
It seems that Redis stroke a deal with Microsoft who has seen it as a way to differentiate. Or it was so cheap they didn’t care. While the other two were either not informed or refused.
The LWN article the other day also did a good breakdown of the fact that “big money companies” were funding code contributions to Redis, to such a degree that they actually outnumbered commits by employees of “Redis Labs” (which itself was originally a third-party SaaS company unaffiliated with the actual official Redis project).
On that topic, I agree with Colin Percival (on X - https://twitter.com/cperciva/status/1773406269539520941):
Should we consider Redis’s functionality frozen at 7.2? Any new contributions and functionality will be proprietary to a given fork and just further vendor lockin.
Besides bug/security fixes and things like supporting new TLS versions, I don’t see the need for much active development on redis.
It’s basically done for 99% of use-cases.
Exactly. Many of the commands added in the last few years had extremely situational usefulness.
On one hand you could say more feature doesn’t hurt, but IMO it’s actually the big downside of Redis over some simpler KV stores. It does so many different things with so many different performance characteristics that just exposing Redis to developers can be seen as risky as they might start to create slow queries and impact latency, etc.
And it’s even more worrying when you see that RedisLab is trying to chase the LLM thing. It’s one thing to be a swiss army knife, another to be a kitchen sink.
VC backed companies adding useless features, and developers embracing ‘teh new shiny’ to pad their resumes. Name a more iconic duo.
That doesn’t sound like vendor lock-in to me.
the alternative (not valkey) is SSPL’d.