[gramakri2]

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.

[vineyardmike]

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.

[gramakri2]

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

[cebert]

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

Momento is likely impacted.

[tejasbaldev]

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.

[gramakri2]

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!).

[Dylan16807]

> 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?

[jen20]

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.

[arp242]

"Almost zero", not "exactly zero".