Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AWS gives open source the middle finger?

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 297 posts

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#161

Post by carlsborg »

int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

> Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it.

Which AWS service are you referring to exactly? AWS's existing json document DB is called DynamoDB and has nothing to do with Mongo.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#162

Post by jenscow »

hedora wrote: post #12
notyourwork wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company has the same attitude in my experience, this ins't unique to Amazon. edit: For those down voting instead of just disagreeing provide a company and their policy. All the companies I've worked at have been the same as Amazon more or less and all my friends have similar employment clauses.

California law expressly prohibits this exact policy. If you want to be able to work on open source (that is unrelated to your job, on your own equipment) on your own time, move to Silicon Valley. Even Amazon employees in CA should be exempt from this policy.

> "that is unrelated to your job"

My OSS project is "software development".

My company's main function is "software development".

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#163

Post by glogla »

fogetti wrote: post #56
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

Yeah, I don't understand it either. There is a company which puts 300 M$ effort into developing something and then another company is using the first company's brand recognition to get a competitive edge while offering zero added value (And no, hosting mongodb in AWS not a new thing, only uninformed people would assume so. When I look around I find services like Scalegrid or MDB Atlas itself which is exactly the thin…

Is this a recycled comment? I have deja vu.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#164

Post by sokoloff »

askmike wrote: post #159
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

> They are not advertising their replacement as MongoDB, either. I don't really agree there. The service is called documentDB and this is how they describe it [1]: > Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) > Fast, scalable, highly available MongoDB-compatible database And the first 2 sentences: > Amazon DocumentDB (with MongoDB compatibility) is a fast, scalable, highly available, and fully managed document da…

I think the plainest and most obvious reading is that this is not MongoDB but that the migration from MongoDB over to this not-MongoDB would be easy because of the compatibility with MongoDB.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#165

Post by ovao »

throw2016 wrote: post #142

We are in the middle of a transformation and its clear open source will have to change. There is little stopping cloud providers and other well funded parties monetizing your projects leaving little room for you to. Because they don't have to focus on development they can divert their resources to marketing, adding the syrup on top to 'ease use' and ride the hype wave while the original developers are dismissed as 't…

> It's perfectly legitimate to expect to sustain yourself while building open source products and projects.

I’m not convinced that should be the case. Any business endeavor carries risk, whether its basis is open source software, closed-source software, or any other product type, and one shouldn’t have an expectation of any level of success.

There are fortunately many success stories relating to open source software, so from my perspective it’s unclear that anything needs to change.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#166

Post by tallanvor »

saagarjha wrote: post #109
int_19h wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft doesn't. You're only required to get pre-approval in case of conflicts of interest.

> You're only required to get pre-approval in case of conflicts of interest. Given the extremely diverse set of things that Microsoft works on, much of which is likely done without you being disclosed on it, how can you be sure that your project is not a conflict of interest?

Conflict of interest = something you are directly involved with at work, or potentially worked on for the company previously. For example, if you're on the SQL Server team then contributing to SQLLite would reasonably be considered a conflict of interest, but contributions to the Linux kernel wouldn't be.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#167

Post by raxxorrax »

tanilama wrote: post #15
Pfhreak wrote: post #3

I left AWS after six years of working there wholly because of their restrictive policies about developing software in your spare time -- especially if you were thinking about working on a game. I recognize this article is about a product offering of AWS, and not their internal policies towards contributing to open source, but the two are linked in my mind and I'm not all surprised to see a headline like this.

Amazon is really a frugal company, in a sense they want every penny they spend on you to evetually make it back to their pockets.

Always judge a company by how they treat their lowest employees. And since people at Amazon having difficulties trying to find time to take a piss, it doesn't really qualify as an employer for me personally.

I like their services in AWS-land and they have really good solutions. They probably treat their developers better as long as they can be exploited. But if there is another service with comparable features, I generally don't have to think very long.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#169

Post by throwaway1280 »

donavanm wrote: post #93
int_19h wrote: post #29

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. MongoDB found that objectionable, and changed the license such that Amazon would either have to pay, or stop using it. Amazon stopped using it, and started using its own in-house implementation instead (presumably because it was cheaper to develop it than to pay MongoDB). So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choi…

Amazon was using MongoDB without paying for it. Do you have a citation for that? AGPL is usually not considered business friendly or a corporate "allowed by default" license, even for internal use. Contrary to the headline and articles inference I havent seen any indication that MongoDB source or IP is or was actually being used. As you note this all comes down to API compatibility and tangled notions of "proprietary…

Yep. AGPL is explicitly forbidden within Amazon, even for non-customer-facing use, and their open source license lawyers are very twitchy about it.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#170

Post by camtarn »

StreamBright wrote: post #129
Pfhreak wrote: post #3

I left AWS after six years of working there wholly because of their restrictive policies about developing software in your spare time -- especially if you were thinking about working on a game. I recognize this article is about a product offering of AWS, and not their internal policies towards contributing to open source, but the two are linked in my mind and I'm not all surprised to see a headline like this.

In the US, right? You can't do such a thing in the EU.

I worked for Amazon in the EU, and the rule was certainly in force. Whether or not it could be enforced is a different question, but none of us wanted to go up against Amazon's lawyers!
Post reply on HN