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

261–270 of 673 posts

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

#261

Post by 08-15 »

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.

He used a permissive license so that everyone, including Amazon, can use his code without any strings attached. Presumably because he wants his software to spread far and wide. This is the typically stated reason why people use permissive licenses, isn't it?

Therefore, shouldn't he be thanking Amazon for spreading his software?

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

#263

Post by kllrnohj »

ivanbakel wrote: post #211
dalbasal wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look.. going back up the thread and the tweet. There has to be daylight between legal "fault" or obligation and courtesy. The author isn't going on a tirade, he made a quip. We have faculties, as humans, that aren't strictly legible in the way a license or legal code is. Laws are not a substitute for custom or courtesy. We do need both. No one said they stole. They said they were discourteous.

But the author had the opportunity to specify the behaviour that he felt was courteous enough. Some people do not care about shout-outs, and those people do not include attribution clauses in their code licenses. I also did not mean "fault" in the legal sense, but rather in the sense of courtesy. It is not a faux pas to comply neatly with the terms of a public contract. What you're suggesting is that Amazon erred in…

> But the author had the opportunity to specify the behaviour that he felt was courteous enough.

So I'm free to treat you like an absolutely piece of shit, be a raging asshole at you, and you're going to defend my horrendous treatment of you just because legally I'm allowed to and you failed to make a contract with me saying I have to be nice in excruciating detail that's legally enforceable?

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

#264

Post by wpietri »

frabert wrote: post #80
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 t…

There's plenty of sense to it.

Every contract, every law states what we see as the bare minimum required not to be actively harmful. They're society's skeleton. But bodies are more than bone, and societies are more than people doing the bare legal minimum.

Look at what the law requires of parents, for example. Food, shelter, clothing, school attendance, a lack of physical abuse. But parents who do the legal minimum and no more are awful parents, and awful people. But more laws wouldn't help. What kind of law could guarantee love? What kind of police could enforce it?

Community spirit is not something that can be expressed in a contract. Acting like people should have foreseen a particular asshole and tried to defend against them contractually is victim-blaming. The actual solution is for assholes to hear from the community that the behavior isn't welcome.

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

#265

Post by kllrnohj »

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.

If that were true then big companies wouldn't have PR departments. But they do, because public image does actually matter to them. Brand recognition & emotional response to those brands is a huge part of being a big company.

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

#266

Post by lioeters »

josalhor wrote: post #134
frabert wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

If I suggest an idea from a coworker in a meeting as if it was mine, that move would be seen, at the very least, as somewhat rude. If I got that idea from examining the competition, that would be seen as a smart move. Sure, if attribution is a requirement then the natural thing to do is to turn it into a legal requirement . But I don't think that is the discussion here. It comes down to how we want to treat open sour…

I agree this is about the culture of software and open source in particular.

Reducing the issue to the bare minimal legal requirement is stooping low, that we cannot expect corporations to behave ethically, with common decency and respect, unless forced to do so by law. Sure, that's the real world, but we should demand better of the people who run and work in these corporations.

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

#267

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#268

Post by scarface74 »

An official response from someone at AWS.

Matt Asay @mjasay · Tim, I run the open source strategy and marketing team at AWS. I hadn't been aware of this but am looking into it. (Regardless of anything we may have done, thank you for what you clearly have done with your project)

Standard Disclaimer: I’m a consultant at AWS. Opinions are my own.

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

#269

Post by hartator »

madeofpalk wrote: post #224
prepend wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s to be expected then, the legal bare minimum.

Again, this conversation is not about the bare legal minimum. no one is disputing they have acted legally.

> no one is disputing they have acted illegally

Probably a typo. But I think you mean “no one is disputing they have acted legally”.

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

#270

Post by xtracto »

madeofpalk wrote: post #224
prepend wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s to be expected then, the legal bare minimum.

Again, this conversation is not about the bare legal minimum. no one is disputing they have acted legally.

Funny, these kind of threads sound similarly to how some companies I have worked for sound when talking about working on Saturdays:

    Me: Do we have to come to work on Saturdays?

    Boss: You dont HAVE to... but you know, people come and do work to go the extra mile.

    Me: Ok, but If I don't come, there's no problem right?
    
    Boss: Well, no, there's no problem. But you know, there's lots of work and it is great when people push together.

    Me: Ok good, yeah I like my work and I like helping others but, I also appreciate my personal life. So... no problem if I decide not coming on Saturday right?

    Boss: MMhhgh yeah, no problem, but you know, we like to think you are COMMITED to our startup mission.
And, then they get angry when I don't go on Saturdays. If you want me to go on Saturdays just put it in the darn contract and tell that as part of the terms when we are negotiating, then I'll walk out and we will all be happy.

Same here, if the developer wanted something to happen, then he should have put it in the license. Otherwise, there's no reason to be whining that something that was NOT expected to happen (as per the license) did not happen.

Post reply on HN