Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Apr-2024 23:11:42 JST pistolero

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
   @lanodan I'd been meaning to ask you Valkey vs. Redict. I saw Valkey say they'd be amenable to LGPL if they had a consensus. I think it'd be nice get Valkey to switch to LGPL but if they don't, LGPL isn't much better than BSD, but I saw you went the other direction. I am interested in your thoughts.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Apr-2024 23:11:41 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @p There's quite few things at play:
     - I'm familiar with most people involved in Redict, so I casually gave a hand, also first fork which got meaningfully created by a pretty wide margin
     - Redict also has interest of distros at heart, while Redis OSS had quite few things to fix there like allowing de-vendoring
     - Valkey meanwhile is purely corporate*, absolutely no interest for me there, I'd only send a patch if I already had to write it
     
     And as far as licences go, I think the LGPL offers a decent level of protection against what happened with Redis without being a PITA in terms of license compatibility with existing software.
     
     *I take the Linux Foundation as a the biggest linux-invested corporations in a trenchcoat, rather than something at least a bit independent from them, or at least a bit more ~democratic.
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Apr-2024 23:25:00 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     • Ricotta :windmilloffriendship:
     @Ricotta @lanodan Entirely too close to "Reddit". "Valkey" sounds nicer anyway.
     
     The context is Redis changed licenses (screwing the hackers to get a larger slice of the Amazon/Alibaba pie, many such cases), so now there are forks, one of the forks is run by a shouty guy but has switched to LGPL, the other one is run by some people that appear to be way less shouty and are being conservative about changes at present; I hesitate to say too much until I hear what lanodan thinks, because I don't want to color it, but I suspect it's "pick the one with the most GPL". In this case, I think I like Valkey (I'm not even on current Redis so it's not an urgent issue), but curious to hear lanodan's thoughts.
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ricotta :windmilloffriendship: (ricotta@yggdrasil.social)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Apr-2024 23:25:01 JST Ricotta :windmilloffriendship:

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @p @lanodan I have absolutely no idea what the context of this post is, and I'm not going to look, but clearly the answer is anything but Redict since "Redict" is dangerously close to "Reddit".
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Wednesday, 24-Apr-2024 23:47:38 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan
     
     > so I casually gave a hand,
     
     Yeah, I saw, like Alpine build stuff. I looked through the commits.
     
     > by a pretty wide margin
     
     Eh, it's been a month, there are no wide margins yet. It kinda struck me that DeVault is trying to yell "FIRST!" and then insulting the people running the other forks, kicking up a stink, etc.
     
     > Redis OSS had quite few things to fix there like allowing de-vendoring
     
     Yeah, I mean, I'm probably gonna end up running one fork or the other; if antirez isn't running it for years now, it's not like Redis-branded Redis is magical or blessed somehow.
     
     > And as far as licences go, I think the LGPL offers a decent level of protection against what happened with Redis without being a PITA in terms of license compatibility with existing software.
     
     If it is really different from BSD, I'm not sure how, but I also haven't looked at it very carefully and that was years ago. (I essentially took :rms:'s word for it that it was a somewhat non-committal GPL designed to be compatible enough with BSD/MIT that code could be linked, so I never had too much of a use for it.)
     
     > *I take the Linux Foundation as a the biggest linux-invested corporations in a trenchcoat, rather than something at least a bit independent from them, or at least a bit more ~democratic.
     
     Well, sure. "Slightly preferable to the Apache Software Foundation" is accurate but not exactly a ringing endorsement. But the people that started the fork expressed the intent to run it as a community-lead project, and I have about as much reason to take them at their word as I do any other random hackers. Apparently Redict went out of its way to break API compatibility by renaming everything, and that appears to be most of what has happened so far (after which DeVault shows up and says "LOOK AT HOW MANY LINES HAVE CHANGED, NOW WHICH FORK SHOULD YOU PICK" instead of potentially reconciling changes between forks and potentially merging them; DeVault being disingenuous and combative and breaking things for no reason kind of put me off, I think I'd trust a random hacker somewhat more than him).
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Thursday, 25-Apr-2024 00:06:06 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @p
     > I essentially took :rms:'s word for it that it was a somewhat non-committal GPL designed to be compatible enough with BSD/MIT that code could be linked, so I never had too much of a use for it.
     
     Reminds me that I hate how :rms: and his crowd do a lot of manifestos and barely any documentation to the point of apparently confusing the two…
     
     LGPL from what I gathered over the years is a copyleft license (so taking source code back is guaranteed), but within the limits of your software, so you typically avoid the cross-software license compatibility issues that you'd get with the GPL due to it considering everything linked as part of the same whole.
     
     So for Redict it means you should be able to just use it as before even with linking to it, but Redict itself is protected. And as there's no copyright assignment, any relicensing would require consent of the community.
     
     > Apparently Redict went out of its way to break API compatibility by renaming everything
     
     Nah, there's still a compatibility with the redis API (IIRC even ABI) so it's a drop-in. And AFAIK the renames where done to avoid trademark issues (which given the rug-pull of redis makes sense to avoid).
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Thursday, 25-Apr-2024 12:36:47 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to
     @p The previous symbols are aliased, headers have slightly moved but thanks to pkg-config it shouldn't be more of an issue than like installation at a different prefix.
     See https://codeberg.org/redict/hiredict/src/branch/main/util/hiredis.pc.in
   • Embed this notice
     pistolero (p@fsebugoutzone.org)'s status on Thursday, 25-Apr-2024 12:36:48 JST pistolero

     in reply to

     • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
     @lanodan
     
     > a lot of manifestos and barely any documentation to the point of apparently confusing the two…
     
     It is an issue.
     
     > LGPL from what I gathered
     
     Okay, right, right, yes. I think I recall this.
     
     > And as there's no copyright assignment
     
     Yeah, I understand the management issues that can crop up, but the copyright assignment thing is almost always a bad sign.
     
     > Nah, there's still a compatibility with the redis API (IIRC even ABI)
     
     Symbols and headers have moved, unless I'm mistaken. (If I'm mistaken, then that's good.)