AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service • Hacker News Board

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#11

Post by frabert » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:39 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #8

frabert wrote: post #2

If you don't like the terms of the license for software you released maybe you should have chosen a different one.

There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"? I don't like this idea that you have no right to complain about something if you haven't specifically banned it in a legally enforceable license.

For big companies, there's no distinction between "morally acceptable" and "legal". Stick to a license where what's immoral to you is made illegal.

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#12

Post by hehetrthrthrjn » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:39 AM UTC

"free software for me but not for thee"

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#13

Post by ChrisRR » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

Why choose to publish open source if you then complain about people using your code? If he didn't want that, he should've used a non-commercial clause

I assume he personally thanked all of the technologies that he's used as well?

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#14

Post by jbezos64 » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:40 AM UTC

cheers Tim it's mine now

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#15

Post by 3pt14159 » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #3

> Not necessary as per the APLv2 license The conversation ends there, doesn't it?

Not really. The conversation goes on as long as we like. Part of OSS is about trust and reputation. AWS could have really helped the maintainer with a single sentence and they didn't.

It's like not saying thanks to the barista when you get your coffee. Not the end of the world, but it's still a touch rude.

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#16

Post by lki876 » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

frabert wrote: post #11

nicoburns wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"? I don't like this idea that you have no right to complain about something if you haven't specifically banned it in a legally enforceable license.

For big companies, there's no distinction between "morally acceptable" and "legal". Stick to a license where what's immoral to you is made illegal.

For people there is and its always people who make decisions. Companies are just a legal entity.

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#17

Post by timdorr » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

Does anyone know where the source code is hosted? If they forked that project, doesn't it need to be made public?

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#18

Post by oefrha » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:41 AM UTC

Taking permissively licensed open source code without so much of an attribution obviously sucks, but I can’t quite see the evidence that this is a fork? Same concept, sure. Code generated is similar but different enough, and there aren’t really many ways to express the similar bits... Interface isn’t exactly breakthrough either, anyone would have used a textarea + buttons. (Only looked at the screenshots.)

Can someone check the source code of the extension?

(It's certainly weird that 30+ comments in, everyone else is taking sides without even questioning the IMO not terribly well supported premise.)

Edit: Okay, judging from NOTICES.txt it is.

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#19

Post by lki876 » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

curiousgal wrote: post #3

> Not necessary as per the APLv2 license The conversation ends there, doesn't it?

Not legally required != shouldn't do it.

You're not legally required to say "Hi" when you run into people you know and making it legally enforceable would be a legal nightmare, but it's the decent thing to do.

Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

#20

Post by ivanbakel » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

nicoburns wrote: post #8

frabert wrote: post #2

If you don't like the terms of the license for software you released maybe you should have chosen a different one.

There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"? I don't like this idea that you have no right to complain about something if you haven't specifically banned it in a legally enforceable license.

In this case, the author can set out what they think is acceptable in their license terms. Attribution costs nothing to the user - so if you want it, stick it in your license.

People should be able to comfortably use software within the bounds of the license without worrying about the author coming along and then shaming them for not complying with an additional set of implicit constraints.

Yes, it would have been nice for Amazon to acknowledge the original author. But given that they are not obligated to, it's unfair to act as if they are at fault for not doing so.