61–70 of 226 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then AWS would fork from a version of redis with a more permissive license and only support a subset of functionality moving forward.
They could, but would they? That would mean their offering is less competitive vs anyone providing fully featured Redis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook made $118 per user in North America in 2018. So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now.
That's the average. They definitely didn't make that much from my account that I log in to 5 or 6 times a year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! You can't have it both ways. You can't have random people submit IP to your codebase and then own the monetization of the end result.
So how do you bootstrap your company? You choose closed source and you throw away early adopters - people are way, way less likely to try out closed source software from what I've seen. They'll even resent you for it. You choose open source with a permissive license - you bootstrap, get users, and some larger company comes along and essentially takes it from you. You choose GPL3 or some less permissive license and no…
Step 1: Launch company to monetize open source hoping to get rich in IPO. Step 2: Be shocked when Amazon uses your open licenses exactly how they're allowed to Step 3: Write angry letter about Amazon monetizing the project you were trying to monetize. Open source isn't meant to be a get-rich quick scheme for founders to generate cheap buzz off their 'free' project. It's literally designed to be forked and used in wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do you bootstrap your company? You choose closed source and you throw away early adopters - people are way, way less likely to try out closed source software from what I've seen. They'll even resent you for it. You choose open source with a permissive license - you bootstrap, get users, and some larger company comes along and essentially takes it from you. You choose GPL3 or some less permissive license and no…
Why not use a dual license model? AGPL for all, commercial license for paying customers. I think a number of companies use this approach.
Step 1: Launch company to monetize open source hoping to get rich in IPO. Step 2: Be shocked when Amazon uses your open licenses exactly how they're allowed to Step 3: Write angry letter about Amazon monetizing the project you were trying to monetize. Open source isn't meant to be a get-rich quick scheme for founders to generate cheap buzz off their 'free' project. It's literally designed to be forked and used in wha…
I'm reading Pieter Hintjens "Social Architecture" at the moment, and there he warns exactly about what just happened to Elasticsearch.
Why should Amazon not be allowed to sell its own products on its own site, but the grocery store is allowed to sell its own branded milk at its own stores, in competition with other milk sellers?
The fact that Amazon is rolling open source products into its own offerings isn't anti-competitive: it's a reflection of a key flaw in the open source philosophy. The moat of open source is that it is expensive to maintain and difficult to monetize, thereby disincentivizing unserious forks: but now that Amazon is monetizing it, it's a problem, because their resources are effectively unlimited and they are effectively monetizing it. The potential was always there for anyone to do this, but the difficulty of it meant that no one ever tried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish they offered that option. I'd sign up for ad free FB for $2-$3 a month if it made it easy to set retention periods on my data and opt out of the collection.
Facebook made $118 per user in North America in 2018. So you're offering to pay far less than they make off you right now.
Also that seems way way up since in 2017 they made only 6.18$ in Q4[1]... so who's suddenly paying so much money for our user data?
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/facebook-earnings-q4-2017-ar...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then AWS would fork from a version of redis with a more permissive license and only support a subset of functionality moving forward.
They could, but would they? That would mean their offering is less competitive vs anyone providing fully featured Redis.
Why is this a problem? Aren't these companies there to take a cut of the service they put in? If Amazon can incorporate those services/tools and that reduces the prices for the end users, why is it looked as wrong? This is basically the middlemen analogy in commerce which internet completely decimated by allowing manufacturers/retail to go directly to users.
Amazon, the third most valuable company on Earth and controlled by Earth's most wealthy human being, cloned an open-source project and then sold access to it. Of course that's allowed under the Apache license, but I'm sure Elastic never saw that one coming. So they tried to correct their mistake. Surely Amazon could afford to figure out a financial arrangement to continue using Elasticsearch, and surely that arrangem…
All of this is irrelevant to your argument.
> and then sold access to it.
Are the purchasers of this free software foolhardy, or is Amazon providing them value in some way? I suspect it's the latter.