• Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Redis is also on the list, but not Valkey. Gitea is on the list, but not Forgejo. Still nice to see governments endorsing the open-source-ish software they know and FOSS principles, though!

    • madame_gaymes@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      I imagine the list will be dynamic. Those projects might be on a list somewhere, just haven’t been vetted yet by their standards. Start with the source projects, then dive through the forks.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      To be fair, I know redis and gitea (barely, gitlab is way more popular) and not the other two. Enterprise support and name recognition are quite important for government usage.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Valkey was created recently as Redis changed their license, having clauses which made the user choose between being “discriminatory against users of the software that use proprietary software within their stack, as the license requires the open-sourcing of every part interacting with the service, which under these circumstances might not be possible” or being non-commercial. Forgejo was created when Gitea decided to go the JetBrains route a few years ago. It’s since absorbed Gitea’s clout.

        • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          The simple answer: nobody is actually reading any of these licenses. I run into the problem constantly and even people who should know better do not (most of our IT staff for example…)

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yeah, and you have to pay for that. Lots of open source software have enterprise support and usage limit licenses but having to pay for something isn’t open source. I am personally ambivalent at non-commercial licenses but I agree that the restriction against using proprietary software with Redis in commercial usage is kinda bad.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Of course you have to pay for a commercial license, it’s in the name. Development, tooling, support, etc, all costs money.

              I like the distinction. If you want to profit from open source, make your code open source. If not, pay up.