141–150 of 290 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol. True, but not much to differentiate on that unfortunately, unless they're able to point out something fundamentally wrong with the Amazon platform.
Cost? Single point of failure? Data residency laws? Lock in? Just saying there's definitely a market for a database I can run.
It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. I guess everyone is accepting that these clouds are in fact major threats to these projects, as providing these databases as a service is pretty much the only r…
Part of it is that companies are getting better at it. There is no attempt at confusion over what "open source" means in this announcement, and automatically converting to open source in three years is clever. I don't see anything to object to, do you?
Even if cloud providers give back more than they take, there nothing legally stopping them from stealing an open source project as their own. The Business Source License (BSL) seems like a good reaction. What Amazon did to confluent.io and so many others seems pretty cold hearted.
Stealing an open source project would be like saying stealing quick sort. You can't steal something if it was given to the public domain.
I think there is so much black and white positioning of this issue - competition from AWS does not eliminate revenue for the project, but reduces it, by a lot. It may not be enough for Open Source company which relies on heavy monetization
It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. I guess everyone is accepting that these clouds are in fact major threats to these projects, as providing these databases as a service is pretty much the only r…
The three year change is also a big deal in my mind. Would make me a lot more comfortable to adopt knowing it is absolutely guaranteed to become OSI Open Source later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stealing an open source project would be like saying stealing quick sort. You can't steal something if it was given to the public domain.
> Stealing an open source project would be like saying stealing quick sort. You can't steal something if it was given to the public domain. Most open source projects are not given to the public domain, but encumbered with clauses in the form of their license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stealing an open source project would be like saying stealing quick sort. You can't steal something if it was given to the public domain.
Quicksort is an algorithm, a copyright on it would not hold up, but a creative use of it may hold up. Kafka is not part of the public domain, but available through an open source license, that AWS is arguably exploiting to make some money off the back of open source contributors.
"Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form."
It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. I guess everyone is accepting that these clouds are in fact major threats to these projects, as providing these databases as a service is pretty much the only r…
Imo the key difference here is that they're owning the decision and not trying to paper over the fact that it is no longer OSI Open Source. The three year change is also a big deal in my mind. Would make me a lot more comfortable to adopt knowing it is absolutely guaranteed to become OSI Open Source later.
It’s interesting to see the mindset over here at HN change over the year. I recall when MongoDB introduced their “commons clause”, RedisLabs did the relicensing and ElasticSearch doing the dual license open source code, there was quite some outrage over here. I guess everyone is accepting that these clouds are in fact major threats to these projects, as providing these databases as a service is pretty much the only r…
Imo the key difference here is that they're owning the decision and not trying to paper over the fact that it is no longer OSI Open Source. The three year change is also a big deal in my mind. Would make me a lot more comfortable to adopt knowing it is absolutely guaranteed to become OSI Open Source later.
This is more validation of the threat that cloud providers (mainly AWS) are to businesses built around open source products. Yes, AWS and others are legally permitted by existing open source licenses to create SaaS versions of these open source products, but with cloud computing becoming an increasingly winner-take-all market, it leaves little room for the software's authors to generate revenue via hosted offerings o…
It'd be interesting if there was a way to specifically require AWS, Azure, Google Cloud (or more generally any cloud hosting reseller) to pay if they use the open source software or any derivative of it (or if they create any company which then uses it) for the purposes of reselling it to others. Basically give the open source project a 30% cut if you're going to resell it (or fork and resell it). It might be hard to…