Amazon simultaneously wants to be "part of the community" but also extract the maximum amount of profit via AWS. Amazon can just do a deal with Redis to share a percentage of the profits from their Redis usage. They don't have to, but they could. But no, they insist on having it for free, and we should be grateful that benevolent Amazon with their $23 billion operating income (from AWS) deems Redis worthy for a contributor or two (which is of course entirely in their own interest). Give me a break.
Amazon Inc. wants to maximize profits. Okay fair. I'm not against capitalism. But it holds others to a different standard by insisting they only (not Amazon) should be beholden to some different type of post-capitalist post-scarcity "let's all share together in community" type of model and cries crocodile tears when they model of extracting the maximum in profits while giving the minimum in return blows up in their face. You reap what you sow.
Amazon needs to either hold everyone to the same standard as they have for themselves or stop whining.
No, you can't have this both ways. I'm the main contributor from AWS, and I've worked many times on weekends because I care about open source. I like helping people, I don't need to be paid to do it. Many of the AWS folks that made changes were normal engineers that were excited to be part of Redis. https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/10419 and https://github.com/redis/redis/pull/8621 are both examples of features someone from AWS built in their free time. We're all upset about this. Not because Redis deserves to get paid, it's that they acted like they were being good stewards of the open-source community and then they changed their mind.
When a FOSS maintainer tells you they sometimes do work on the weekends for the love of the community [1] you believe them. The evidence (with timestamps!) is there for all to see in the pull requests and commit history.
[1] https://twitter.com/reconditerose/status/1770697315671535707
How much does redis pay those aws engineers for their contributions?
I know devs doing exactly this today. Devs who when the actions of their employer would have forced them to diverge from being able to do so, stuck to their convictions so much that they chose to terminate that employet contract so they could continue to do exactly that "in their spare time out of the goodness of their heart."
I will fully admit that I am not that kind of individual, I lack the capacity to contribute meaningfully in that way, but there are certainly many out there in our industry who are.
(the page is now a 404)
The core team has the following remit:
* Managing the core Redis code and documentation
* Managing new Redis releases
* Maintaining a high-level technical direction/roadmap
* Providing a fast response, including fixes/patches, to address security vulnerabilities and other major issues
* Project governance decisions and changes
* Coordination of Redis core with the rest of the Redis ecosystem
* Managing the membership of the core team
Wasn't Dwarf Fortress charity funded for a long time?
They only hit it big when they got the game prettified and on Steam.
The problem is that it may not match the self-interest of other contributors. Especially when there is a "main" company that owns the IP of the open source that is not them.
But note how Amazon forked ElasticSearch when it became no longer open source, to their "OpenSearch" OpenSearch is Apache-licensed. Amazon engineers maintain it. This is not charity exactly, Amazon makes money from selling hosting of it.
In the "classic" age of open source, most projects were collaborations, where different people who got paid by differnet employers worked on it on company time, because their employers used it for their operatons. And were willing to pay to contribute to the software they used. Most of these were not in the business of selling software. They did not expect to make direct money from their contributions to the software.
This is how apache httpd began for instance. I think some of the employers of contributors were non-profit as well.
I think that's actually the only sustainable model for open source. A single company paying people to develop open source software and hoping to make money from that -- was probably never actually sustainable.
If the current economic conditions don't support people working on the clock to contribute to open source software that their employers use -- because software has gotten too complex, or because companies have gotten much more stingy or unwilling to pay for such things -- then indeed we won't have much open source anymore, we'll have proprietary source-available licenses like this.