The open-source world presents a unique challenge: balancing the ideals of community collaboration with the realities of commercial interests. This article examines the experiences of Redis and Elasticsearch, highlighting the difficulties faced by open-source projects when large corporations seek to capitalize on their success.
Redis's Open Source Crisis and Return
On May 1, 2025, Redis officially announced its return to an open-source model after a six-year period of restrictions. This decision came about because the Redis team felt exploited. Their initial goal was to monetize their open-source database, but they struggled to compete with cloud service providers who offered Redis-based services without contributing back significantly. The team felt they were essentially working for free for these larger entities.
Redis's Attempts at Commercialization
In 2018, Redis made its first attempt to commercialize by moving advanced features behind a closed contract. This meant cloud services had to sign agreements with Redis to offer these functionalities. However, this change had limited impact, because the core value of Redis was speed, and most KVS (key-value store) applications prioritized that.
The situation escalated, and in 2024, Redis made a more drastic change that targeted cloud providers directly. This led to the ousting of two developers from AWS and Alibaba, who allegedly acted against Redis's commercial interests.
The Rise of Valkyrie and Redis's Retreat
In response to Redis's actions, AWS, Google, Oracle, and others, under the leadership of Linux, launched Valkyrie, a new open-source KVS project. This attracted many developers and quickly became a popular alternative. While Valkyrie didn't immediately steal a large portion of Redis's market share, it significantly impacted the Redis community by drawing away developers, which constitutes a "slow death" for open-source projects. Realizing this, Redis returned to its open-source roots in 2025, seeking community acceptance again.
A Tragic Hero?
Redis's story highlights the challenges faced by open-source projects. Their initial desire for fair compensation seemed reasonable, but the open-source community initially did not rally to its cause. Many perceived the issue as merely a commercial dispute. Moreover, Redis’s simplicity made it hard for its team to find business models.
Elasticsearch: A Different Approach, Similar Problems
Elasticsearch, an open-source search engine released in 2010, provides a contrasting example. Elastic, the company behind Elasticsearch, adopted a dual-licensing model, offering basic features for free and charging for enterprise-level features like security and auditing. This initially seemed successful, fostering a harmonious relationship with many cloud service providers.
AWS's Challenge and the Forking of OpenSearch
AWS, however, chose not to partner with Elastic. Instead, they provided Elasticsearch services directly, retaining all the revenue. Eventually, AWS created a fully open-source alternative, OpenSearch, by forking Elasticsearch. This project aimed to provide all features, including enterprise-level functionalities, under an open-source license. AWS then handed the project to the Linux Foundation, establishing the independent OpenSearch Foundation.
The Impact on Elastic and the Return to Open Source
OpenSearch quickly gained popularity, surpassing Elasticsearch in corporate search services within three years. Elastic, facing similar challenges as Redis, was also forced to revert to an open-source model. The problems faced in this new environment were also similar: developers and users had moved on, and the community was fractured.
The Unsolvable Problem and the Example of Linus Torvalds
The experiences of Redis and Elasticsearch illustrate a fundamental problem: how to distribute the commercial value generated by successful open-source projects while maintaining the unity of the open-source community in the face of well-funded corporate entities. This appears to be an unsolvable problem.
The Saint Analogy and Git
One possible solution lies in the example of Linus Torvalds and the creation of Git. When BitKeeper, the version control software initially used by the Linux project, became unavailable, Torvalds created Git and unconditionally contributed it to the community. This selfless act resulted in the development of Git hosting services and the creation of successful platforms like GitHub.
Linus's focus on creating a valuable tool for the community, rather than pursuing commercial gain, is a rare but powerful example of the open-source ideal. The Linus Foundation supports him, allowing him to maintain his work.
Conclusion: Understanding and Supporting Open Source Creators
Ultimately, the article emphasizes the need for understanding and support for open-source creators. While the open-source community may have started as an idealistic utopia, most people still have material needs. Enabling open-source developers to benefit from the commercial value they create does not contradict the spirit of open source; rather, it can attract new talent and foster further innovation. The hope is that these challenges don't discourage future open source contributions.
{# 
{# 
{# 
{#