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

91–100 of 673 posts

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

#91

Post by jillesvangurp »

curiousgal wrote: post #3

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

Not really, it's about Amazon not being a great OSS citizen. They don't have to be but it's a combination of immature, rude, and unprofessional to not be like that if your core business is packaging up and integrating other people's OSS software.

They are of course well within their rights as per the license to behave like this but there's a notion of being courteous, grateful, and constructive in the OSS world that comes with being a responsible OSS citizen and that goes a long way to ensure people volunteer to help you out with bugs, support, change requests, etc. It doesn't cost anything to just reach out and give this person some kudos. It's the right thing to do.

Amazon is being a bit insensitive here and this sounds to me like somebody up high ought to do a bit of yelling internally about acting professionally and not needlessly burning bridges with the OSS people that they depend on for their core business. At least I'd be all over this if I were confronted with this kind of behavior by one of my colleagues. Not cool. A public apology would go a long way to fixing this; maybe a couple of lines in the readme. Doesn't cost a thing.

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

#92

Post by another-dave »

threatofrain wrote: post #57
ivanbakel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd agree with this — with things like Creative Commons it's very clear if someone is asking for attribution or not, if it allows non commercial etc.

In an enterprise company, it's _much_ easier to use something with an established licence. Having "MIT with attribution" might be waved through by a standing policy. Having "my custom MIT fork" needs Legal involved & may not be a hill to die on so just get ditched instead.

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

#93

Post by himinlomax »

ivanbakel wrote: post #20
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.

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…

> so if you want it, stick it in your license

It's a rather pointless burden and not without cost, as it can make it incompatible with other licenses.

It's reasonable to expect some credit to be acknowledged even when it's not mandated by law. Just common courtesy.

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

#94

Post by enriquto »

sheeshkebab wrote: post #29

Are there open source licenses that specifically ban major cloud providers from using software and letting others use it on Apache 2 terms? Specially license tailored against every one of them, by name?

No need to mention them by name. Just use the AGPL, for they are all irrationally allergic to it.

EDIT: notice that usage of the AGPL produces the desired effect, while still being free software (which it wouldn't be the case if you excluded specific users in your license terms).

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

#95

Post by lwh »

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…

The original BSD license had this "advertising clause" and it was removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#4-clause_license_...

Personally I'd rather have their source be released like AGPL, as that would credit the authors and let me see their changes.

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

#96

Post by whoevercares »

It’s called “bias for action”. Actually AWS/Amazon operates like a United States of Startups and the decision is commonly made by team at the bottom of the org tree. So it’s likely a few engineers and managers decide to fork it just to launch something for their KPI. As long as their legal agrees, the leadership has no idea about how team do it

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

#97

Post by code4tee »

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…

If you read further down the Twitter thread you’ll see others point out that AWS actually DID acknowledge him in the release and thus his original rant isn’t accurate. He acknowledges that later in the thread. Of course the, now inaccurate, headline Tweet remains the thing getting attention.

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

#98

Post by dividedbyzero »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #41

2. 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 if you wanted a nod, add a "give me a…

IANAL, but I believe that may make your license practically unenforceable, because all precedents can be argued to not apply because of that change, and even if untrue, just having that sort of argument in court quickly gets prohibitively expensive.

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

#99

Post by preommr »

Like with many things related to license and copyright, this is an issue of culture.

Maybe programmers should realize it's in our common interest to have some kind of group voice. Other random groups with lower stakes seem to get concessions.

How about instead of role-playing as lawyers, we realize that maybe they should've thrown this guy a bone in the form of an attribution purely for the purposes of etiquette.

Post reply on HN