[skywhopper]

Not really. Post-closing the source, the thing called “Redis” was the actual fork, and Valkey was the original community-built product. Users who want existing configurations to continue working on the same terms need “install redis” command not to break their licensing expectations.

[cortesoft]

First, they didn't "close the source". The new license is not closed source. You can argue why you think the license is bad, but it is not closed source.

Second, I don't know about you, but continuing to function in the same way is my primary need for systems I am managing. When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before. Switching binary names breaks that promise.

My setup has scripts that do things like check that a process named "redis" is running... this will break if the process is now called "valkey"

I feel like all the commenters live in some kind of crazy alternate world where purity of license matters more than stability of systems.

[barotalomey]

> When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before.

But where do you put the blame?

The distro for making that change, or the redis company for breaking your software stack?

[cortesoft]

Look, I know licensing decisions are important and a lot of people care a lot about them.

For me and my company, though, it just doesn't matter. We don't use redis in a way that would ever come into conflict with the license, so it really doesn't affect me. Redis didn't break my software stack with the license change. I am sorry, but I just can't get up the energy to care that much about which license they choose. If it helps them make money, fine go for it. I can't root that hard for the side Amazon is on.