Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.

If I update my packages and suddenly an open-source software is replaced with a closed-source one, I would blame my distro. It's totally normal for distros to replace packages like this with the best replacement they have.

I think that is not normal at all, and absolutely should not be normalized.

It is much worse for my package manager to install a totally different software, than for my package manager to install a new version of the software I asked for that now has a different license. Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.

If the distro wants to do something, they can throw a warning up saying "this package is now licensed with the SSPL, would you still like to install? Try installing valkey for a BSD-licensed alternative". But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.

You're a bit late to the party. Its been normalized for almost as long as distros have existed.

No, you don't just randomly have a different package installed one day, at least on major distros. The next distro release will include the new package. If for any reason you care, you can always go install the other one you want instead as well, it just won't be part of the default package repos.

Generally, the replacement packages are 1:1 with the one they are replacing, and/or compatibility shims are included during the install. Its seamless. Also, generally the package manager does tell you what it's installing.

The major Linux distros are very careful about this stuff. The two largest have huge enterprise user bases, and it's never been a problem.

Many of the Linux distros are extremely opinionated on what goes into their default package repositories - it's a major reason why you choose certain distros. You are delegating all of this concern about packages, compatibility, bug/security fixes, and licenses and whatever to the maintainers of the distro. They are very careful not to break existing systems, and aren't going to surprise you one day with a major disruptive change. For them to replace Redis, for instance, with Valkey, it's going to be on the next major os release, it'll be a drop in replacement (all Redis commands continue to work, etc), and you'll have an opportunity to see this change while installing packages. This isn't "shoot from the hip" npm style stuff...

On Arch Linux, you are explicitly asked whether to replace a package with the (distro-)designated successor.

> Also as an aside, SSPL is not closed-source.

It's also not a free and open source software license. This is disqualifies software using it from being in the main repos for various distros.

Seems like some sort of user prompting could be acceptable, though.

> But installing software I didn't ask for is bad, actually.

Except it's a fork, so it is what you asked for. The name changed, sure, and there's a different governance arrangement. But pretty much the entire point of using a distro is offloading decisions such as which developers and repositories to trust onto the maintainers.

If you want to make those decisions for yourself then you should obviously be cloning and building from source. I'm not just saying that - I myself do exactly that in cases where it matters to me.

If you don't care about license purity then perhaps don't use a distro that explicitly filters on that?

This would suck if you wrote scripts that looked for a process called 'redis' running on your machine.

I'd imagine the package would have a symlink for redis that points to valkey

Even with a symlink, the running process is going to be called valkey, not redis

Only if valkey explicitly changes the program name after it starts, or Does something like calls exec on it's program directly. At least on linux.

I disagree probably because I'm just used to it. Most of your major distros do this, including Fedora and Debian (the two largest). Usually this is due to license issues.

Problem is, redis threw their users under the bus by relicensing [1], and user would end up with an outdated redis version.

1: https://github.com/redis/redis/commit/0b34396924eca4edc52446...

I LIKE this. Why would you not use a distro if it just removes packages? Or force closed source on you if it's legal to install the binaries? I do not know it's the same on Ubuntu, but I consciously made the decision and typed out the valkey package. If I would not know now about all the BS and would just want Redis I would LOVE for my distro to just install a replacement without me noticing anything. Maybe with a little hint and conformation message during install why this is happening and that is it. Hats off to Fedora maintainers, this is how you make the end user happy!

> Well that's a reason not to use a distro right? If I type `sudo dnf install redis`, I want to install redis not valkey.

Using a distro that handles things your way is your privilege. I assume most people who install packages care about the functionality they provide, not the brand name - so it seems like a fair default for distros that aim to appeal to broad user bases imo.

> Using a distro that handles things your way is your privilege. I assume most people who install packages care about the functionality they provide, not the brand name

This is an amusing example of "the duality of man," having just finished reading a bunch of comments to the effect of "the user should have the ultimate say as to what apps they can install from the App Store" in the Apple thread.

But you do have the ultimate say in this case. You can reconfigure the mainstream package managers in all sorts of ways, set up your own repos, anything you'd like.

I use a distro because I don't have the time or energy to do all of that for myself. It's a purely voluntary arrangement unlike the iOS/Android duopoly that modern society is increasingly built on top of.

It's not just the brand name, it's also the binary name. All the support code I have expects the binary to be named 'redis'

Also, what happens if functionality drifts?

So the redis package renames it to redis. No big deal.

You're thinking of it as if upstream is primary. Actually, when you use a distribution package, the distribution has the final say over the contents of the package.

I understand your point, but that's how distros handles mostly licence issues. And I do believe that's the right way, we should strive for OSS projects in a distro that literally focuses on it.

Not really. Post-closing the source, the thing called “Redis” was the actual fork, and Valkey was the original community-built product. Users who want existing configurations to continue working on the same terms need “install redis” command not to break their licensing expectations.

First, they didn't "close the source". The new license is not closed source. You can argue why you think the license is bad, but it is not closed source.

Second, I don't know about you, but continuing to function in the same way is my primary need for systems I am managing. When my provisioning system installs a package by name, i expect it to work in the same way as before. Switching binary names breaks that promise.

My setup has scripts that do things like check that a process named "redis" is running... this will break if the process is now called "valkey"

I feel like all the commenters live in some kind of crazy alternate world where purity of license matters more than stability of systems.

Look, I know licensing decisions are important and a lot of people care a lot about them.

For me and my company, though, it just doesn't matter. We don't use redis in a way that would ever come into conflict with the license, so it really doesn't affect me. Redis didn't break my software stack with the license change. I am sorry, but I just can't get up the energy to care that much about which license they choose. If it helps them make money, fine go for it. I can't root that hard for the side Amazon is on.