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

371–380 of 673 posts

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

#371

Post by bluetwo »

tnolet wrote: post #331
mjasay wrote: post #297

I run the open source strategy and marketing team at AWS. As I told Tim privately and publicly ( https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/1317084448119169024 ), I hadn't been aware of this but am talking with the relevant product team to see how we can improve in his regard. AWS uses a lot of open source, and we contribute a lot, both in terms of code (first-party projects like Firecracker and Bottlerocket, but also third-p…

OP here. Matt and I are chatting about this. We will work it out. As per my tweet, it's not about the letter of the licensing, it's about the spirit.

Honestly, AWS should have a policy they apply consistently. Maybe mention that in your conversations.

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

#372

Post by ManBlanket »

wang_li wrote: post #363
masukomi wrote: post #346

I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work. instead of forking they coul…

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.

Does it not muddy the waters when an open source project is outright appropriated as a paid service?

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

#373

Post by toast0 »

varispeed wrote: post #312
jaywalk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone wants to get paid by people who profit off their software, they should license it in a way that requires that. Otherwise, tough luck.

This is a loophole that allows big companies to avoid hiring engineers and paying right tax. Not sure why would you support this?

All of my enduring open source contributions have been made while employed by a big(ish) company. I went through the effort to get them upstreamed so other people wouldn't have to make the same effort to debug and fix the same issues. Does that enable other companies to avoid hiring engineers to do the same work? Maybe, but it also enables everyone to benefit from things working just a bit better.

I don't need a royalty from my fixes, I was compensated for my time. I don't even care about a credit, but I understand some do.

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

#374

Post by offtop5 »

soumyadeb wrote: post #332
offtop5 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the new Amazon Intern who finds an awesome open source project. She now gets fired because open source means open only for some. The main value add is AWS is hosting it. Amazon isn't being an angel, they could of easily given the author a solid 20k donation as a thank you. Apart of releasing MIT or Apache licensed code is knowing someone else might take it and make millions. If you want to restrict your so…

I hear you but GPL makes it hard for everyone else (most companies have policies against GPL). We run an open-source project and it's AGPL licensed for the exact same reason. But lot of orgs have blanket ban on AGPL. Maybe there is a way to define "bad" practices in OS outside of license. Similar to how monopolistic practices are banned in business because they are unhealthy for the broader ecosystem. Just asking

Ohh I get your point. What I'm saying is if your not ok with the biggest company on Earth using your code you need to release it GPL.

Dual licencing is also a strategy, GPL is free and commercial usage can be $5,000 a year or whatever.

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

#375

Post by inopinatus »

arbitrage wrote: post #207
prepend wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I had a professor, once, who chewed me out for submitting work at the deadline. I told them that if they wanted me to submit it on Thursday, they shouldn't've set the boundary for Friday at midnight. That didn't go over too well.

As a range or interval specifier, many (most?) non-programmers will assume the interpretation of “midnight” that favours them in any subsequent dispute.

In practice this often means that “from midnight on Monday to midnight on Tuesday” is a 48-hour interval so far as consumers are concerned. I recommend advertising things like cut-off times as “11:59pm” and friends, when possible.

Also, my time formatter turns “12:00” into “12 noon” following weary experience of people who confuse 12:00 with midnight.

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

#376

Post by luhn »

wang_li wrote: post #363
masukomi wrote: post #346

I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work. instead of forking they coul…

It seems like you're arguing that people should get both the good will of having an open source license and the profits of a closed source license. Which comes across as disingenuous.

I think OS creators should reap some of the rewards of their software. Popular OS projects have provided incredible value to the industry. It's only fair that some of that value trickles down. Sometimes it does (sponsorships, job offers, etc.), but oftentimes it doesn't. Obviously there's no rule enforcing that creators get their fair share, and nature of open source means there could never be such a rule. A blessing and a curse, I suppose.

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

#377

Post by rickspencer3 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #350

If you offer a license that doesn't require something, don't be surprised when people accept it and do only what is required by the license. That's literally the deal you offered.

Honestly, I agree with this. Your ethical standards should be encoded in the license.

OTH, if you treat people like a jerk (for example by forking their code and not involving or crediting them) there are practical social repercussions from that, but probably AWS is not much impacted by that.

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

#378

Post by chemeng »

masukomi wrote: post #346

I really wish, that when COs like Amazon decided to productize a thing they either offered the core developer(s) enough $ to work on it full time (if they wanted) or a job to do that with a guarantee that as long as it was a product, and they wanted to work on it, they'd be allowed to continue. Problem with offering job is the likelyhood of getting redirected to some other unrelated work. instead of forking they coul…

If core developers are bought up by a single company, I'd be wary of the future control, direction and progress of the project. The open source version would likely stagnate as the commercial version gains features. It'd be hard not to align with company goals and plans when your paycheck depends on it.

Better would be to use mechanisms that already exist to sponsor the core developers for a length of time (Patreon, liberapay, etc). Alternatively, companies like Amazon could create an internal fund that assists key open source projects they've commercialized to set up as non-profits and then makes donations to them over X number of years.

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

#380

Post by zajio1am »

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.

People do not like being publicly shamed for not adhering to some vague and not-generally-accepted obligation.
Post reply on HN