It’s bait and switch to community developers who contributed free labor to a for profit company for what is now either a fork or a more restrictive license

The version they contributed to is still available under the same permissive license that was in effect when they were contributing the code.

The license change only affects the code written in the future and now people can change their mind about contributing.

That seems fair to me.

Maybe you think that morally the license should never change but there is no clause in the license to prevent changing the license, so that would not be a reasonable expectation.

What percentage of commits were made by community developers?

The company Redis only adopted the Redis project (and changed its name) a few years ago. Redis started as a community project and was run that way for almost a decade.

Why should that matter? I'm sure the percentage would be way smaller if this was the license used initially.

All clients will still be Open Source and a lot were initially written by the community as far as I'm aware, so they're actually still asking for free labor there.

About 75% afaik.

They contributed free labour under a licence that says that anyone can do anything they want, including offering it under a different licence.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how open source licenses work. I am completely sick of this take. It’s intellectually dishonest, or extremely ignorant.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity

Reading the other comments the switch does make more sense, if you want to freeload off of the work redis has done for the project then you’ll have to join whatever community remains on the forked version, and anyone who cares about this kind of stuff should probably understand what’s permissible in the previous license, which clearly includes it being switched out like this

It's salami bait and switch.

Why do you think almost zero users are affected by this change? If a business was built on hosting redis or providing managed redis, that company is now inviable, no?

note: I am not disagreeing with the license change, just asking why you think nobody is affected.

If a company is built on hosting redis - and is now unviable, they should be pretty incentivized to fork the previous version and maintain it themselves. Isn’t that the power of open source?

I doubt there were many (if any) non-AWS businesses that were affected. To earn a profit you need to continue to work, I don’t feel bad when a corporation is negatively affected after their leeching or rent seeking is disturbed. Even if it was previously acceptable behavior.

> “ I doubt there were many (if any) non-AWS businesses that were affected.”

Momento is likely impacted.

But that is not what I am asking though. The OP is saying almost 0 users are affected and this is not true.

That's exactly the point. Companies providing managed services on top of popular opensource projects are not contributing to the respective OSS project at the scale at which they've been benefitting commercially from these projects.

Aiven is a good example - I don’t know if they contribute to Redis, but they appear to offer a managed service based upon it.

Not sure what exactly the point is. The OP is saying almost 0 users are affected and this is not true. I was only saying that the license change affects quite some people. Whether rightly or wrongly is not mine to debate (I have nothing to do with redis!).

> I was only saying that the license change affects quite some people.

Affects them how?

The number of businesses providing managed redis is very small, isn't it?

"Almost zero", not "exactly zero".

Anyone installing a distribution package will be impacted eventually.

https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=redis