By law you need to pay for accepted work at least the minimum wage. My question is whether AWS is breaking the law by appropriating someone else work without payment? Or do you think something like this should be regulated?
I see this as a loophole, where companies can gain useful projects without having to pay wages.
AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
51–60 of 673 posts
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#52There are some replies in this thread that misunderstood the content of Tim Nolet's twitter post. (Probably because the short headline has pitchfork raising overtones.) - He's not complaining that Amazon forked his code with Apache license. He admits he also uses other open source with permissive licenses - He just thought it would be nice/courteous/polite/etc if Amazon acknowledge/recognized/credited/mentioned/thank…
> There are some replies in this thread that misunderstood the content of Tim Nolet's twitter post.
> [...] (reasons)
Well, then why go on something as big and public like Twitter and HN to post about it in the first place? Send a mail to the team of AWS and get in touch. I don't get the point of this tweet, either.
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
...you can just add a clause E: who downvoted this, care to explain? have you ever eard of the jslint license? you can add the fuck you want to one's software terms
Just like they could have added the owner's name.
no? why would they? they are complying with everything dude asked for and mind reading is not in mandatory training as of yet.
if you want a nod if used as a part of a software, just add it!
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#54If you don't like the terms of the license for software you released maybe you should have chosen a different one.
OP here. You are 100% right. But it's more about the spirit than the letter here. My company heavily depends on OS from some great projects: we make money based on other people's hard work too. Just a short "shout out" would have been nice. We do that with many open source projects, or we sponsor them. And we are a tiny tiny company.
Next time, slap AGPL. Maybe offer an alternative license to companies for GitHub sponsorship alongside.
I really hate this happens to people. :(
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#55"free software for me but not for thee"
I'd actually support a license that said "it's OSS except Google/Amazon can't take my thing, launch as a service and charge for it".
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#56There are some replies in this thread that misunderstood the content of Tim Nolet's twitter post. (Probably because the short headline has pitchfork raising overtones.) - He's not complaining that Amazon forked his code with Apache license. He admits he also uses other open source with permissive licenses - He just thought it would be nice/courteous/polite/etc if Amazon acknowledge/recognized/credited/mentioned/thank…
Some Creative Commons by Attribution license? Maybe it's not an OSS license (I didn't check) but it should work.
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#57Earlier 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.
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 ni…
A credit-to-author clause has been tried before by the tech community, and IMO it's up to the community and not an individual author to develop a license which fits. The reason is because any modification to a well-known agreement makes your license very expensive to understand, even if it's a trivial modification.
Open source licenses only work because the community adopts them as a standard.
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#58Here's another example of AWS interactions with OSS: instead of contributing a perfectly good and non-AWS dependant feature to an upstream project (PGBouncer, for a strictly PostgreSQL-level useful feature) they decided to rather stretch it and publish their changes as a _patch_ to the upstream project instead, with a different, restrictive license that only allows its usage on AWS services, together with examples on how to use it on RDS/Redshift:
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#59Looks like they did give some attribution in the NOTICES.txt
Re: AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service
#60Taking 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 someon…
It is the same code - Someone on Twitter noticed that if you download the Chrome extension and look in the notices.txt file of that bundle, the first line reads puppeteer-recorder v0.7.2