On May 3, 2025 1:24:31 PM EDT, Campbell Jones <sere...@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>
>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
Correction, you/Andrew/Levente. I was thinking about Morten's response while
writing.
