[tayo42]

The work was still on the behalf of AWS and their goal to make money and out compete Redis. it seems like this thread is forgetting that?

The alternate future seems to be a headline like "Redis shuts down and stops development" anyway, so how is this different?

What do you think Redis should do? Continue to let the cloud providers run them out of business? And all because Amazon was gracious enough to fund 1 employee working on it? I think this thread is missing that response.

[_msw_]

No, the goal was to make Redis better for its community, which has positive downstream effects for everyone (users, Redis as a service providers-including Redis Ltd, etc.)

And these efforts involved more than one developer. It is only that one of them happened to be a core team member (which required working in good faith for the interest of the Redis community as a whole—a “commitment to the project”).

https://redis.com/blog/redis-core-team-update/

[tayo42]

You dodged the core part of my comment and question. Why?

Amazon isn't running and charging for redis as a platform to make redis in the world a better place.

[_msw_]

On the “downstream” side of this equation (managed services), the goal is to build a business that delights customers to the point where they part with their money to enjoy it. The ultimate goal there is naturally revenue and profit margin oriented, but _how_ you advance that goal matters a lot. In my experience, focusing on the customer first increases the chances of success.

When such a line of business has a core component that is open source, the growth and health of the “upstream” project, its developers, and the user community is an essential component in its continued success. This is why folks on the ElastiCache team has been increasing their investments in both the upstream project code and in helping to maintain it as a “community-led” project under the previous governance structure.

Those investments increased the provision of digital public goods (as open source licensed software is generally considered to be a “digital public good” even if it is not technically in the public domain). Increasing the provision of digital public goods is generally seen as in service of the public good, as it (more often than not) makes the world a better place.

[tayo42]

I think I agree with someone else in this thread. This reads like spin and fluff. We all make quality improvements when we use open source software because we run into our own issues. Were also on a hacker forum, you don't need to respond to me like were at some business partner meeting.

What do you want redis to do though as they are run out of business by amazon and the rest? Who pays for the rest of the developers?

It reads like Amazon is trying to bully their code supplier. The code was out there, and without negotiating Amazon decided on their own "one developer sending TLS upstream seems fair". I'm sure amazon will negotiate with Redis for some amount in the end. Or have the one developer write the drop in replacement if the code is only worth one persons time and some other random commits? Then maybe Amazon can even open source it with no restrictions?

Do you at least see and understand the perspective, that giant companies are making tons of money off software that is out there from smaller people. Giving back what is perceived not that much if anything?