On May 3, 2025 10:09:19 AM EDT, Frederik Schwan <fre...@archlinux.org> wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2025 at 05:04:51PM +0200, Bert Peters wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> A while ago we as a distro decided to stop supporting Redis, due to
>> their licence change [1], and move to Valkey. Through a combined
>> effort, we removed all direct dependencies on redis, replacing them
>> with vault and patching until that worked. The announcement was posted,
>> and a deadline was set.
>>
>> This may or may not have caused Redis to reconsider their license
>> change, and have announced another relicencing, this time to the AGPL
>> [2] [3]. With that change, I personally believe there is no longer a
>> reason to remove redis from [extra], and keep it in the repos as-is.
>> Redis is almost but not quite compatible with Valkey, so dropping it
>> without good cause would be a disservice to our community.
>>
>> Now, I don't want to make light of the harm that Redis inc initially
>> wrought on the open source community with their license change, or
>> waste the work that was done to make everything work with Valkey.
>> Pushback like this is what caused the license change. As such, I
>> propose we continue to use Valkey as the implementation for all
>> purposes that don't strictly require Redis, and maintain Redis simply
>> as a package for our commynity's convenience. That way, should the
>> licensing change again in the future, we do not have a similar amount
>> of work ahead of us. This seems to me the Arch way: pragmatic and user
>> central.
>>
>> Now I know that this is not a universally shared opinion, so please
>> consider this email an invitation for discussion on what we should be
>> doing here.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bert
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>> https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/message/2ERGX565GSSBUMADBG7DQJYNPJD5GUXD/
>> [2]: https://antirez.com/news/151
>> [3]: https://redis.io/blog/agplv3/
>
>Hi Bert,
>First of all, thank you for bringing the IRC/Matrix discussion to the ML!
>
>Whatever led redis to reconsider, the way they treated us is unacceptable
>to me as a volunteer package maintainer. Anthraxx, then Andrew and I got
>contacted by a product manager from Redis. There were no apologies for
>the licensing issues, nor any for future coorperation - only some
>information about the latest Redis features and a statement that removing
>Redis from the official repos would not be in the interest of
>"the community" (whatever community is meant in this context).
>
>In contract, we've had very positive interactions with the Valkey upstream.
>There is a clear interest in making Valkey packaging easier for distributions.
>For example, we'll likely be able to remove the jemalloc patch that makes
>valkey/redis link against the system jemalloc in the future.
>
>So how do we proceed?
>I agree with Morten, that Redis upstream has proven itself abolutely
>unreliable.
>I propose we exclude redis from the official repos for one year, after which
>we can reevaluate its status.
>Contining to aintain Redis will only result in more unnecessary drama.
>We've already announced Redis's replacement and we should stand by that
>decision
>rather than follow upstream’s erratic direction.
>
>Best regards,
>Frederik
>
I wasn't aware of the Redis mails to you/Morten/Levente. With that context, I
agree with your suggestion of a one-year ban from [extra]. We've already made
the announcement and preparations for the removal and Redis should reap what
they've sown, so to speak.
Campbell
