1) bundle the "source available" modules as part of redis source distribution 2) enable people who only want bsd code to be able to build a "redis_core" 3) commit to the community that the core will remain BSD licensed and that they are committed to making it the best key/value store. 4) increase the amount of source available code that until then had been kept closed (including what we called big redis/RedisOnFlash/MultiTier) 5) Require anyone using the redis trademarks in a commercial setting to ship the entire Redis (which includes the source available portions, so Amazon et al would no longer be able to use the Redis trademarks without a license deal.
Another alternative was to simply go to AGPL (which they went to anyways awhile later).
I failed to convince the leadership about this. I honestly think they squandered huge value in community engagement, but perhaps that's what they wanted. I left a bit after these changes were made as it became clear that the new US led leadership of the company wasn't particularity interested in what was the soul of redis. (previously was heavily Israeli led and a critical mass there was invested in redis as an open source product).
Funny story, the then new/current CEO used to be the head of WebEx at Cisco. We had a Q&A when he was hired and I asked, what did he learn from his time at WebEx about how to maintain market position (as they lost everything to zoom et al). His response at the time wasn't that convincing, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I feel its fair to ask if the same thing occurred again.
Business will have to try different things at different points due to external & internal pressures. Some decisions are reversible (at cost), some aren't. Decisions (chaotic / complex / complicated ones, at least) are not made merely based on available data and analysis, but also based on intuition, experiments, and predictions. Then, to look at the outcome rather than the process is missing the point. When the circumstance / situation isn't clear-cut, the feedback (the outcome of a decision) is in itself more valuable to the organization (than never having taken the decision, at all), especially when the costs (to reverse / change it) are bearable.
"Some future components will be published under the commercial license and will exist only in that build."
(From that thread)
Pay the $20/yr or whatever to have them host it and the whole world keeps turning.
Now, given the general ignorance on infosec I'm suprised that people actually refused to pay to upload their passwords. The world has some hope after all.
by that logic, every time you send a password over a TLS connection, you're publishing it outright too
But even if they do all that, they still have to break my password. Nobody is going through all that for a one user password manager.
I'm not sure where your sentiment comes from here.
A PW manager relying on only a single password as the encryption key - and one that you type in frequently, mind you - has always been a little of a design issue to me. I much prefer 1Password's approach where they have a usually-hidden second secret (the "Secret Key") that both (A) isn't shown unless you're setting up another device, and (B) acts as extra data needed to form the decryption key for your vault.
The main threat model I'm thinking of protecting against is a 1password vault data breach of some kind (or possibly cooperation with government agencies) + password exposure in some way (be it from CCTV-extracted password entries, over-the-shoulder watching, etc), as even with both of those factors, they would somehow need to get your secret key to decrypt vaults.
Like, all of those lastpass vaults obtained during the Lastpass hack would be de-facto useless even with a correct password if their design included some sort of hidden secret secret.
Changing licenses is a sick move and companies doing that should be fucked over, because the license made them big. Changing it later on means that they got greedy nothing more nothing less.
Without oss bitwarden would be a paid cloud like all the others that probably would’ve had a hard time getting trusted.
Or just trying hard to keep the company afloat?
Just because they published Open Source code at some point, you feel that you're entitled to free updates for the rest of your life?
Everything will get chipped away piece by piece. It’s been happening continuously for well over a decade at this point and everyone should understand the strategy by now.
At least with bitwarden, if the value they're trying to extract becomes more than the product is worth, in terms of real cost, lockin or transparency, at least the code is open now and for the foreseeable future. And when it comes time to fork it, AI will make it easier for the future maintainer(s) to keep the fork alive at minimal expense.