AWS forked my project and launched it as its own service • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #455

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.

Like CC-BY-NC (Creative Combine, Attribution, Non-commercial). If you want to use the work commercially (ie for business purposes, commercial doesn't require selling) then you must negotiate licensing terms (or infringe copyright [Fair Use / Fair Dealing aside].

[deleted]

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

#482

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

rmrfstar wrote: post #385

tnolet wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not quite the same behavior, but BigCo's free-riding on FOSS is nothing new. "At Serge’s trial Kevin Marino, his lawyer, flashed two pages of computer code: the original, with its open-source license on top, and a replica, with the open-source license stripped off and replaced by the Goldman Sachs license." [1] [1] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/michael-lewis-goldma...

[deleted]

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

#483

Post by rmrfstar » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #429

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. I think the software community is having an "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" moment. The community pushed for a long time for licenses that donated labor to corporations because the licenses sounded more "free", and that flattered their…

"They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits." [1]

[1] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/froos1.asp

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

#484

Post by toyg » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

BSD and MIT licenses can be used with the advertising clause, and you can add anything you want. Similarly, you can add clauses to the GPL if you want.

Licenses are contracts. You can add to the contract that people who fork must do star-jumps every morning, if you feel like; but you have to state it upfront.

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

#485

Post by dheera » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #458

dheera wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but there is no mention of the original author on their press release. All they say is "Amazon launches CloudWatch Synthetics Recorder". https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2020/10/amazon-cl... I wonder if FOSS licenses can be modified such that if you are claiming in press that you are "launching" something and it is substantially based on something open source you must state the original autho…

Surely the answer is "of course you can", just tack on "all media mentions must have an approved attribution without which all license terms are null and void" to any license and viola!?

It would be nice if that were incorporated into a well-known, publicized, and lawyer-vetted license.

The problem is if I tack it on myself, nobody will ever touch or use my code even in the ways I want them to, because people fear obscure licenses if they don't have lawyers.

If I release code as GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, people will use it without second thoughts. IF I release code as "BSD with modifications" people will look at it with suspect eyes.

The effect I want to have is NOT to prevent large companies from using my code. In fact I want to encourage them to use it, but to also publicly mention me along with its use, which would be very valuable to career-building and job seeking. That way, when writers of open source code aren't offered jobs by the companies that use that code, at least they gain high visibility for other companies to want to hire them.

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

#486

Post by Navarr » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #408

EpicEng wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

"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.

The "Fuck you, pay me" license.

FYPML.

Figuring out the right terms would be difficult, but not impossible.

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

#487

Post by toyg » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:30 PM UTC

suyash wrote: post #435

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.

I would bet AWS wouldn’t even touch it if it was under GPL, most companies have made it forbidden to use because of reasons you stated.

And would that be a bad thing? If the tool is good, FOSS users will get a competitive advantage over AWS.

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

#488

Post by GordonS » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

pokemapper wrote: post #58

Here's another example of AWS interactions with OSS: instead of contributing a perfectly good and non-AWS dependant feature to an upstream project (PGBouncer, for a strictly PostgreSQL-level useful feature) they decided to rather stretch it and publish their changes as a _patch_ to the upstream project instead, with a different, restrictive license that only allows its usage on AWS services, together with examples on…

That's some really, really shitty behaviour - it actively seeks to screw over an OSS project they benefit financially from!

Given how much AWS relies on developers, it boggles the mind how they get away with this kind of behaviour.

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

#489

Post by toyg » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

eecc wrote: post #451

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think the software community is having an "I never thought the leopards would eat my face" moment. The community pushed for a long time for licenses that donated labor to corporations because the licenses sounded more "free", and that flattered their…

Bravo, that’s more or less the TL;DR of all BSD, GPL/Apache endless flame. I love how these reckonings and syntheses are coming.

Sadly, every generation has to re-learn that the scorpion can’t help itself from stinging.

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

#490

Post by graton » Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

suyash wrote: post #435

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.

I would bet AWS wouldn’t even touch it if it was under GPL, most companies have made it forbidden to use because of reasons you stated.

FYI: Linux is licensed under GPL v2. AWS uses Linux extensively.