Which people adopting Redis didn't had to pay for, if they had to, they would rather suffer with those other less capable open source alternatives instead.
The point is that it wasn't developed by VC money. It was bought with VC money after the fact.
It wasn't a "demo" for a paid product funded by corporate dollars or VC funding, it was just a thing that someone created, and released as an open source project.
It's hilarious that you think the companies dropping open source licenses for the products they bought are going to stop the industry using open source. As I said originally, it's going to have the opposite affect: it's going to make the industry embrace the very nature of open source and create forks of projects, the moment there's a sniff of a corporate buy out, specifically because of this type of activity.
The question here is what motivates individual developers to write big projects and then release them as open source. I think vague dreams of million-dollar deals are part of this for a lot of people. As the developer community becomes more aware of what a grind open source maintainership is, people are already less interested in taking on that responsibility. If we also prevent big money buyouts from happening, I wonder what's left to motivate a future developer to create the next redis.
