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

121–130 of 673 posts

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

#121

Post by ojnabieoot »

levosmetalo wrote: post #71
ludocode wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 direc…

The whole point of these highly permissive licenses is that we don't want to constrain independent hackers, or put people in a position where they are unsure if their fork might expose them to liability.

It is undoubtedly discourteous of AWS to release an OSS fork as a new feature without crediting the original author. It is not the end of the world. It is not a reason to go and change your licenses to make things more difficult for the other 95% of developers. But it is a reason to say "some people at AWS are just dang ol' jerks."

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

#122

Post by tinus_hn »

lwh wrote: post #95
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.

Because it’s a great idea but for instance the Linux kernel would have to come with documentation that mentions the tens of thousands of authors. A massive undertaking that doesn’t help anyone, really.

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

#124

Post by emiliobumachar »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #44
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…

...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

I did not downvote, but license proliferation is a big problem in free software. People cannot combine software with incompatible licenses.

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

#126

Post by clinta »

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.

I would prefer to see these things enforced by culture and norms rather than laws and licenses. I don't want to have to parse legalese as part of my role as an engineer. I don't want companies to have to hire more lawyers to verify they can use software I wrote. I want them to be able to just use it, then contribute back after they've experienced using it. I don't want a restrictive license may prevent them from ever even trying my software in the first place. I want culture and norms that encourage the company to contribute to the project, not laws.

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

#127

Post by duckerude »

code4tee wrote: post #97
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.

They did the legal bare minimum in terms of attribution, but you're very unlikely to find it unless you're looking for it.

I don't usually read through files like ~/.config/chromium/Default/Extensions/bhdnlmmgiplmbcdmkkdfplenecpegfno/0.0.1_0/NOTICE.txt (though perhaps I should).

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

#129

Post by hackerfromthefu »

cmaker10 wrote: post #48

Could everyone take a moment here and reflect on their hostile attitude towards an open source author who just wants to be treated fairly (in a moral sense)? My guess is that none of the people who are lecturing and gloating have ever written anything substantial. Shame on you.

Yeah part of the social contract for open source is people get appreciation, respect, and visibility in exchange for their contributions ..

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

#130

Post by zelphirkalt »

lki876 wrote: post #16
frabert wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But then it depends on what kind of people with what kind of mindset make such decisions, doesn't it? (Hint: It's not the altruistic "share with everyone" mindset they have.)
Post reply on HN