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

541–550 of 673 posts

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

#541

Post by GordonS »

asim wrote: post #537
GordonS wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen these Polyform licenses touted on HN a couple of times recently. I really do think we need a couple of new licenses along these lines to become popular enough to be generally accepted. Having said that, I struggle to really grok the language in these licenses; it could be that I'm just more familiar with MIT, BSD and the like, but with the Polyform licenses I'm always left with questions about what I can an…

I think its likely familiarity. Licensing is legal terminology so anything new requires time to reason about. In this case I am a strong advocate for these licenses as they're written in part by Heather Meeker who has authored some of the custom licenses for Redis Labs, MongoDB, etc to protect against this cloud provider hosting issue.

Then I'd love for them to get some more attention, discussion and scrutiny in the community, because I think that's the only chance new licenses have at gaining wider adoption.

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

#542

Post by fractionalhare »

momokoko wrote: post #509
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…

I would disagree in the specific case of AWS. We have not seen such an egregious abuse of open source software with any other company. Most companies that make use of a large amount of opensource actually contribute a fair amount back. Like hiring on the core developers or making a large amount of code fixes and feature development contributions. Amazon does neither of these things. Take a look at any highly successf…

> We have not seen such an egregious abuse of open source software with any other company. Most companies that make use of a large amount of opensource actually contribute a fair amount back.

I don't think your claim about Amazon is true. But even if it is, it's not relevant. None of the OSI licenses require improvements to be contributed back to the original project. The most restrictive of them simply requires improvements to be open to the user.

The intention of open source licenses was never to force those who redistribute the software to improve on it. It was to provide end users with the freedom to be able to do that themselves, by distributing the improvements as well.

It's unfortunate that licenses from a generation ago don't adequately cover all the nuance of cloud computing. But the reality is that open source licenses were never about preventing companies from profiting at the expense of original developers. They were about user freedom. If you're unhappy with the way a company is using the software you open sourced, that is a sign you weren't prepared to commit to what open source means, philosophically.

Something like the AGPL would be preferable, if also more controversial. Then you'd also have a peanut gallery of people telling you your software is "source available" instead of open source.

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

#543

Post by sequoia »

kemitche wrote: post #457
sequoia wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is wanting to have it both ways. - I don't want to use restrictive (GPL) license like those business-hating FSF folks–I want people to use my software _freely_ - Hey! A big business used my software in a way that rubs me the wrong way (in this case, without giving prominent enough attribution)! Not nice! What's not nice about it? You use a permissive license but you're going to get upset if people follow th…

There is, and will always be, a gap between what is strictly allowed/legal, and what is considered ethical/courteous. There's a number of things that are strictly speaking legal, but still considered rude. Often, the reputation of a person or business is based at least in part on whether they do the legal bare minimum, or if they hold themselves to some level of higher standard. I also think there's a difference betw…

Fair enough. I just don't know if it makes sense to expect tech companies operate with any values besides making money. That's why I say "don't ask or beg them to be courteous, force them to either be courteous or 'don't use my code', which a license can do."

Frog & scorpion don'cha know.

The other thing that annoys is the fact that the permissiveness of the license is precisely why AWS used it, probably part of why it's popular, why he can tweet about it & build his brand etc. The author has and continues to benefit from the permissiveness of the license. To enjoy the upside of permissive but complain that the downside isn't fair comes off as a bit self-serving.

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

#544

Post by bluejekyll »

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…

The original tweet (as I understood it) wasn't complaining about this in a legal sense. They know the license allows this. They were complaining from a place of asking for a little respect and acknowledgement.

AWS has appeared to be doing a better job recently (from what I can see) in that regard. It's all around good PR. They lose nothing by thanking the maintainer/community for the work, even though the license doesn't require this. On the other-hand they build good-will.

Given the AWS response linked above, it would appear AWS recognizes this, and so maybe they will better accredit the work.

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

#545

Post by mosselman »

sslayer wrote: post #357
cacois wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think there's room for more than gratitude with, as you said, a trillion dollar company. I know its hard to find a balance when we want free and open tools, developed in a spirit of sharing and enabling innovation. But something feels slimy about an enormous company deriving a huge amount of revenue from a FOSS project, when they could easily compensate developer(s) with barely an impact to their bottom li…

I think the legal aspect of the licensing determines what is "right", otherwise the definition of "right" can be interpreted different ways. Don't be fooled, both parties entered into a contract. One when they published the software, and one when they used the software. Any expectations outside of that are left undocumented.

“Right” can always be interpreted in many ways. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is when “right” is just one thing when we need to worry.

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

#546

Post by andylynch »

dheera wrote: post #404
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…

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…

The author (Tim) appears to be in Germany; under German copyright law he in principle has the moral right to be identified as the author of any computer program he writes, just as it if were a book or piece of music.

Unlike other types of work, this isn't necessarily true elsewhere (eg in the US & UK), but I understand moral rights originate from France and German and are especially strong there.

(I see that page now mentions "Credits: CloudWatch Synthetics Recorder is based on the Headless recorder. " - is that new? )

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

#547

Post by timonovici »

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.

Don't they already use MySQL for example? I don't think it would stop them in any way, unless some lawyers had some really antiquated views, coming straight from the 90's

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

#548

Post by karolist »

jaywalk wrote: post #208
varispeed wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh the good old companies paying in exposure... If you make a profit from using someone else software you should pay them (plus appropriate tax) regardless of the software license.

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.

Am I crazy for wanting a license that prohibits the free use of a project by mega-corps? "If you're a company valued > $XXX usage of this code is prohibited".

I guess I can see OSS as a "free food" stall. Almost everyone can have a bite but I'm not fine with billionaires coming in to steal the recipes. They already have the means to increase their wealth efficiently, society would have much benefit if these mechanisms of wealth increase involved giving some of it back.

Post reply on HN