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

461–470 of 673 posts

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

#461

Post by Xylakant »

iso1631 wrote: post #330
Xylakant wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary problem is that 4-clause BSD is incompatible with the GPL since it adds restrictions to distributing the software (notably the advertising clause)

GPL3 allows for advertising clauses -- e.g. in flowplayer https://github.com/flowplayer/flowplayer/blob/dev/LICENSE.md "The GPL requires that you not remove the Flowplayer logo and copyright notices from the user interface. See section 5.d below."

The GNU project disagrees:

This license is also sometimes called the “4-clause BSD license”.

This is a lax, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the “obnoxious BSD advertising clause”. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software nonfree. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

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

#462

Post by tingletech »

cutemonster wrote: post #327
barkingcat wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker news never reads original posts either way, let alone followups to original posts :) I'll be downvoted, but that's a symptom of how poorly the audience of this site understands the issues at hand. (myself included)

I read the original posts. In my experience, most people do.

I read the comments first, to decide if I want to read the post.

But I read the post before I comment.

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

#463

Post by tick_tock_tick »

elwell wrote: post #416
unethical_ban wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't like how shitty people can be? I don't care" - that is how this kind of comment reads. But let's move on. Interesting idea for a license. Everyone can use and modify it, but if a large company with a market cap above $100m or a company wholly funded or owned by such company decides to utilize this project as a for-profit service, then said large company must hire me at for no less than $175,000 in 2020 value.

> or a company wholly funded or owned by such company ^^ Written as if you've been burnt before...

wholly funded nah we get $1 from Joe down the street he also owns it technically...

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

#464

Post by bdcravens »

scarface74 wrote: post #240
bdcravens wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but they do it typically: "Announcing AWS X, our implementation of {open source project}" (they do this with MongoDB, ActiveMQ, etc). The product mentioned here is more than just a managed version of the open source project; it is a major component however. (good example is Redshift, though when they announced it they barely mentioned the role Postgresql plays in that to be honest) https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aw…

Every talk AWS does about Redshift they mention that it’s based on Postgres. They tell you to download a Postgres driver to connect to it with any language besides Java for which a JDBC driver is provided.

I agree, but I was trying to be apples to apples and compare launch announcements, and when Redshift was announced, the discussion of Postgres was quite muted (admittedly several years ago, so their messaging may have shifted over time)

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

#465

Post by lutorm »

darkengine wrote: post #449
funkaster wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what people don't get when arguing against GPL: "oh, it's such a restrictive license! so viral, blah blah blah". In this case, it would've probable not changed the outcome, but could give the author some leverage for either compensation or mention. IANAL, but my understanding is that GPL would require you to keep the same terms and mention explicitly the original source.

To my understanding, the GPL does not require acknowledging the original author's contributions any more publicly than the Apache license (used by the project). The Apache license already requires preserving the copyright notice, which AWS did. I think the issue is the author wanted a more public acknowledgement of his work, which is a very fair ask. As far as I know, no license requires this (and, I believe such a l…

My understanding is that GPL doesn't force the user to do _anything_ except license any derived work under GPL. It specifically doesn't put _any_ limits on what someone can do with that code precisely because doing so would limit your freedom (with the exception of the licensing issue which is required so as to not deprive _other_ people of the freedom to do what they want with the code.)

It specifically does not require you to pay homage to the original author. The point is to ensure that the code remains free, the original author has no say over what happens to it.

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

#466

Post by jmholla »

systemvoltage wrote: post #340
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…

> He's not complaining How is he not complaining. He totally is.

That's completely out of context. The full quote is

> He's not complaining that Amazon forked his code with Apache license.

The poster was indicating what part of Amazon's behavior he wasn't complaining about, not asserting that he wasn't complaining at all.

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

#467

Post by divbzero »

EpicEng wrote: post #393
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…

>this big co strategy of "mine. I profit now. everyone who built up this useful thing can suck eggs" really sucks and sucks for the humans and sucks for Open Source. Then use a different license. Hoping that a company like Amazon finds it in their hearts to always do what _you_ consider "the right thing" is just a loser of a strategy. You seem to want all of the good of open source, with none of the downsides. Good l…

Which alternative license(s) would you recommend?

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

#468

Post by fourseventy »

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #129
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 ..

says who?

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

#469

Post by pwdisswordfish4 »

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #456
dingaling wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not about the letter of the licensing, it's about the spirit If it's not in black and white then it's not part of the license. Spirit isn't defined. To paraphrase Theo de Raadt, if you're not happy for your code to be used in a puppy mulching machine then don't license it under a permissive license.

Open source culture is so much more than the licenses. A license dictates what is legally permissible but it doesn't mean that there aren't other cultural expectations that go with that. Eric Raymond famously wrote about the customs of open source in Homesteading the Noosphere: "I have observed these customs in action for 20 years, going back to the pre-FSF ancient history of open-source software. They have several v…

It's off-the-charts irony to point ESR's observations to try to validate the author's response here, and to frame it in the terms of some monolithic "open source culture". The brogrammer devops culture in 2020 is starkly different from its forebears—the two hacker cultures in focus in CatB. In fact, the entire premise of the book (it's in the name!) is a commentary on the distinction of cultures and the risk of misleading yourself if you're not thinking clearly and make the mistake of conflating them.

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

#470

Post by garrettgrimsley »

elwell wrote: post #416
unethical_ban wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't like how shitty people can be? I don't care" - that is how this kind of comment reads. But let's move on. Interesting idea for a license. Everyone can use and modify it, but if a large company with a market cap above $100m or a company wholly funded or owned by such company decides to utilize this project as a for-profit service, then said large company must hire me at for no less than $175,000 in 2020 value.

> or a company wholly funded or owned by such company ^^ Written as if you've been burnt before...

It would include that so that the BigCo couldn’t create a shell company or subsidiary to own the product and skirt the $100MM language
Post reply on HN