411–420 of 438 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not provided back the source code for their own improvements. I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the case.
As far as I know DocumentDB is closed source. Btw: I can name zero OSS projects from Amazon and this is not the same for Microsoft (VScode, TS) and FB (React, Jest).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think sspl is realistic to be able to comply with. This clause is ridiculously wide: > Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service All programs you use Every single one of them. There is literally no limit on what sources you would need to publish. You don't need to think very long to realize how impossible that is.
I mean... there's very obviously a limit, right? You don't use an infinite number of programs. And it's not "all programs you use", it's "all programs that you use to make the Program ... available as a service". You don't need to provide the code for Microsoft Solitare, but you do need to provide the code for Apache httpd and your Linux distro. Which is pretty easy to do!
Sure, you could probably fight it in courts to get some reasonable delineation. But the license itself is horribly vague. So the safe bet is to avoid it like plague. It's just not very well written license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Amazon will of course have a PR statement about how it cares about open source. It's not like Apple is known for it's commitment to open source but it has a similar page: https://developer.apple.com/opensource/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value in the market is the subject of the parent thread. Anyways, like I said, Elastic could've made money with a proprietary product but they chose OSS instead (and used Apache Lucene to build on). AWS is just offering customers what they want and there are many other companies doing the same thing (IBM's Compose, Aiven, Instaclustr, etc). How is this against OSS? This is the OSS industry operating as intended.
Mentioning lucene raises an interesting question... what if lucene adopted the SSPL license that Elastic is for their own product... could Elastic's own business model actually survive that?
Allowing one of various foundations to take control of an open source project, can be beneficial for the community as its licensing is unlikely to change in the future. However it does present challenges for any future commercialization.
A good example of this is Confluent, which was founded by the creators of Kafka. LinkedIn, where Kafka was originally developed, transferred control of Kafka to the ASF. As the original developers, the Confluent team still has a lot of influence and contributes a lot of code to Kafka, but they do not wield absolute control. While this has presented some challenges to build a Kafka-centric business, and even led to them creating their own Kafka fork ("Confluent Server") they have still been successful. The community also has long-term confidence in the Kafka's license.
It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully? From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping open source software with some provisioning scripts, management dashboards and cookie-cutter API / cons…
It seems reductionist to say Amazon primarily wraps around open source. What about EC2? S3? Glue? DynamoDB? Many of the services that provide the most value are services Amazon has built out.
Is there any good that done by Amazon to support OSS? Like ever. They started with cloning MongoDB and now Elastic with actually zero contribution to the community regardless of their insane profits. This is a clear single. Amazon can always clone and redistribute any open source software then lock it in for AWS. If we've started to witness declining in OSS, well at least we know now who started the wave.
You're asserting that they have forked OSS and then not provided back the source code for their own improvements. I guess we can check their github repos to see if that's the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. But the question here is not about companies value in the market. Why changing the subject? This should be about the ethics behind Amazon's aggressive actions against OSS and its effect on the OSS industry.
The value in the market is the subject of the parent thread. Anyways, like I said, Elastic could've made money with a proprietary product but they chose OSS instead (and used Apache Lucene to build on). AWS is just offering customers what they want and there are many other companies doing the same thing (IBM's Compose, Aiven, Instaclustr, etc). How is this against OSS? This is the OSS industry operating as intended.
It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully? From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping open source software with some provisioning scripts, management dashboards and cookie-cutter API / cons…
It's hard for me to know whether to feel bad for ES in this case. Did they bring it on themselves? Is Amazon too big and a bully? From my perspective, Amazon has made most of its profit price gouging consumers on bandwidth after vendor locking them into their ecosystem, where they bootstrap new services by wrapping open source software with some provisioning scripts, management dashboards and cookie-cutter API / cons…
One thing which surprised me: Elastic has a market capitalization of ~$11B. I think that changes some of the more floaty ethical concerns. This is not a David vs Goliath situation. This is Goliath vs Super-Goliath. At this point, I'm much less interested in the drama of which mega-corp is screwing over the other. I'm more interested in: how does it affect me? When the titans are done trampling over the rest of us, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed that is likely but I wonder why didn't they at least require a Developer's Cerificate of Origin [0] that kernel.org uses. This is really lightweight (just append one line to git commit message) and supposedly provides a minimum legal base for the change. IANAL. [0]: https://blog.chef.io/introducing-developer-certificate-of-or...
I just opened a pull request to fix a few typos in the README. They are requiring a Developer's Certificate of Origin.