Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 673 posts

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

#71

Post by levosmetalo »

ludocode wrote: post #40
barkingcat wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know that licenses are able to be written and rewritten right? If someone wanted attribution, someone could hire a lawyer and make a license (or make an edit/fork of an existing license) that does what someone needs. Giving attribution (and monetary compensation) to the lawyers who make open source licensing function is also a thing.

He wrote some code and gave it away freely, and all he wanted was a thank you. You say he should have hired a lawyer to write his own license. This is absurd.

If that's what he wanted what stopped him from adding one more paragraph to the licence saying something similar to:

"The USER is required to publicly thank AUTHOR, and make the thanking reproducible in every copy of the derived work that uses this software."

You don't need a lawyer for that. And if someone wants to use his work without attribution, they are free to negotiate a copy with different licence terms directly with the author and provide a compensation.

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

#72

Post by shawnz »

paulcole wrote: post #47
jasode wrote: post #42

There 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…

> when you're a commercial enterprise making a splashy product announcement" Ah yes, this ironclad legalese.

Perhaps that's why such a clause wasn't added to the license?

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

#73

Post by warrenq »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #23
ChrisRR wrote: post #13

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?

Because all the author wanted was credit, and there's no appropriate license for that. The 4 clause BSD license has dropped out of favor for several good reasons and nothing else has taken its place.

Did the author thank the Vim or Visual Studio Code Devs or Linux Torvalds for all the tools he used for making his library?

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

#74

Post by 3pt14159 »

varispeed wrote: post #64
3pt14159 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The model where company makes money off of someone else's work without paying them should be illegal. Currently you cannot hire someone as an apprentice and don't pay them - you need to give at least the minimum wage. OSS is sort of a loophole where companies can obtain work without payment. I think this practice should be illegal and regardless of the license company adopting OSS solution should pay its contributors…

I appreciate the underlying sentiment, but I disagree. When I contribute to OSS it's my choice to and I want the right to let anyone do whatever they want with code even if I never exercise that right.

Personally, I think OSS licences should be changed to prohibit unpaid use by any entity that has a single stakeholder worth more than a billion dollars. That way the startups and medium sized businesses around the world can benefit and the tech lottery winners pay something reasonable ($1m a year, say) to support OSS.

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

#75

Post by tokai »

pmontra wrote: post #56
jasode wrote: post #42

There 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.

Creative Commons recommend against using the cc licenses for code. Recommending using the gnu licenses instead.

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

#76

Post by duckerude »

pmontra wrote: post #56
jasode wrote: post #42

There 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.

Most FOSS licenses require attribution, including the one used here. The issue is that attribution doesn't have to be very prominent.

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

#77

Post by boomlinde »

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.

> There's surely a space between "perfectly acceptable" and "illegal"?

If there is, it's a space that you can minimize using licensing terms, and as a user I will assume that the licensing terms are chosen by the authors in a fashion that best represents their interests. Especially since so many template licenses exist that address this exact problem.

> 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.

I think it's unfair to imply that the post you respond to represents that idea, if that's what you're doing. Although worded frankly, it's a constructive suggestion for what proprietors can do to prevent this. It's not a new problem.

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

#78

Post by senko »

Open Source authors need to be educated about the rights they give up with various licences, so they aren't "educated" in this way.

Copyright licence is a legally binding document. You can talk about the community all you like, but the legal system doesn't give a damn.

Sticking your head in the sand won't make the problem go away.

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

#79

Post by jimhi »

senko wrote: post #45
tnolet wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree with you, but Amazon hasn't reached $1.6T market cap by being "nice". (edit: corrected amount, thx jimhi).

1.6 TRILLION

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

#80

Post by frabert »

dak1 wrote: post #62

I'm extremely disappointed to see how many comments on here focus on the very narrow legal questions and amount to: "Your license didn't say they couldn't." Open source software is more than a license and code. It is a community and the digital public square. And the Tragedy of the Commons is just as applicable to our public square as it is to William Forster Lloyd's common land. Either we as a community hold ourselv…

Honestly, this point is kind of nonsense to me. If people acted as if they were held to the higher standard, we would not need licenses. People (especially when they're not acting alone, e.g. corporations) act in their monetary interest, most of the time. Hence, stick to the license that's least restrictive that still ticks all the boxes you feel are important. If you feel attribution is important, choose a license that makes it legally binding.
Post reply on HN