Everyone's discussing the license and the hosting, but I think this is the truly interesting differentiator:<p>> In technical terms, we are focusing on stability and long-term maintenance, and on achieving excellence within our current scope. We believe that Redict is near feature-complete and that it is more valuable to our users if we take a conservative stance to innovation and focus on long-term reliability instead. This is in part a choice we’ve made to distinguish ourselves from Valkey, whose commercial interests are able to invest more resources into developing more radical innovations, but also an acknowledgement of a cultural difference between our projects, in that the folks behind Redict place greater emphasis on software with a finite scope and ambitions towards long-term stability rather than focusing on long-term growth in scope and complexity.<p>It'll be interesting to see what Valkey's future is with the maintainers having some lofty goals, and expressing frustration that they weren't able to move fast enough or be innovative enough under Redis. As a small-time user of Redis I kind of like the idea that I could just have what I've got now, but with a promise that someone's looking after it. I don't feel the need for millions of transactions per second, a timeseries database, etc.
Being copyleft, Redict can merge any contributions to Valkey. However, Valkey cannot merge any of the Redict commits (unless the contributor actively dual licenses them).<p>Being non-open source Redis can merge any contributions made to Valkey but not from Redict. So if you don't want your code to end up in Redis, contribute to Redict.<p>Interestingly, there have only been two commits from a single developer to the Redis repo in the last two weeks since the license change. A huge decrease.
Time will tell if the version on Codeberg (<a href="https://codeberg.org/redict/redict" rel="nofollow">https://codeberg.org/redict/redict</a>) can compete with the fork on Github (<a href="https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey">https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey</a>) in terms of visibility and contributions.
I think what are seeing here is the true power of an open license. There are now two forks with different approaches and two dedicated and competent teams and we will see not only who wins, but if any or both win (for some definition of win).
If you have a commercial use-case, there is also a non copyleft fork available here<p><a href="https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-launches-open-source-valkey-community" rel="nofollow">https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-launc...</a>
Just to be 100% I can still use Redis for free in my projects in production so long as I don’t sell a hosted version of it right given this new Redis license?
What's the track record of other projects that have gone too commercial and had their code forked like this? The only other example I can think of offhand is MySQL and MariaDB. I don't know what the market share of either is now. Do people still use MySQL? Does it generate profit for Oracle?<p>I think Redis Ltd. is vastly overestimating the value of their product. Redis is incredibly popular, but the vast majority of users are just looking for a simple in-memory key-value store for lightweight database use cases, caching, etc. I've used it in some way in just about all my projects for the past ~15 years.<p>The thing is, I don't care that it's Redis. I don't care about most of its features. I could have subbed in memcached or any number of other solutions. It would have been trivial and had no impact on my system.<p>I have no doubt that there are some power users who need advanced features of Redis, but I also have no doubt that Redict will be better, and that there will be companies who provide commercial support for it.<p>I'm just going to use Amazon ElastiCache for big projects, and continue not caring at all about what it is behind the scenes. And I'll s/redis/redict in my docker-compose.yml for small/personal projects, and that'll be the end of it.<p>I can't imagine a scenario where Redis Ltd. is relevant or profitable 10 years from now. Oracle can afford to lose money on MySQL forever, and treat it as a loss-leader for acquiring new Oracle DB customers or at least new MySQL service contracts. Redis Ltd. has one product and few people need support for it or care much about it vs. alternatives.<p>Edit: Or Valkey instead of Redict; either way, which exemplifies the degree to which I don't care.
This is all fine and good, but the big question for me personally is when we can expect to see cloud providers (DigitalOcean and AWS are the ones I'm using) provide hosted versions of Redict OR Valkey with some sort of upgrade path from Redis. I'm a good full-stack developer and a mediocre server administrator, so self-managing hosting is usually not something I'd prefer to do.
I respect their choice of license. Totally agree they shouldn't let Redi$ take their work after what Redi$ have done. But still let any kind of project use it, including cloud vendors. Downside is that Valkey won't be able to use Redict code, though.
I mostly use Redis in combination with RedisJSON, and RedisInsight is a nice way to check what data is stored. I'm only using it for a handful of small documents which mirror the state of some devices.<p>These options (Redict, Valkey) don't seem to support JSON as a data type, so I'd like to know if there is some server specifically made for dealing with JSON documents. Something like a very lightweight MongoDB server which can be managed via a browser and where the data can be inserted/updated/removed via HTTP calls.
I read the post and it’s not clear why it’s not MIT licensed. Why not allow attempts to “create proprietary distributions?” That’s what open source would allow, no?<p>I honestly do not see this as being different than Redis. Do BSD or MIT and be done with it.<p>It seems needlessly ideological. Everyone wants to call their stuff open source but have strings attached.
Why would any startup ever get idealistic again and release their product under open license when big boys can just fork it and destroy their business? I think the dual AGPL/commerical licensing will be the choice of anyone with still some idealism left.