[dvfjsdhgfv]

I'm sorry, I just hate this foul language. Amazon claims that "Redis broke with the community that helped it grow and left them stranded" whereas the sole reason for the license change was Amazon itself who takes open source projects and gives its creators nothing in exchange. They will bend over backwards and create their own forks like OpenSearch rather than collaborate with the creators. And at the end, they will stab the creators with passive and active-aggressive accusations like these.

[chrisoverzero]

> […] rather than collaborate with the creators.

How do you propose AWS “collaborate” with Elastic or Redis Labs under the terms of the SSPL? Also, who do you believe the creators of Redis are?

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> How do you propose AWS “collaborate” with Elastic or Redis Labs under the terms of the SSPL?

This is quite simple, and should have happened before these companies decide to switch licenses because of Amazon. Each time Amazon decides to use an open source product, instead of doing it for free, they should contact the parent company and offer them a fee. There are many advantages of such an arrangement: a single version exists, the parent company has a stable source of income etc.

I might be mistaken, but this path was possibly chosen by Citus and Azure, and nobody seems to complain.

[growse]

> Each time Amazon decides to use an open source prouct, instead of doing it for free, they should contact the parent company and offer them a fee.

What if, instead of doing that, they hired some of the people making significant contributions to the project? Would that count?

[dvfjsdhgfv]

It depends. For example, when Ubuntu first appeared and Canonical hired some prominent Debian maintainers, they were criticized for that. But I believe the final net benefit was positive.

The problem here is what happens when Amazon stops to pay them. If the owner of the project is a foundation or a similar organization, it may have better chances of survival.