AWS gives open source the middle finger? • Hacker News Board

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#201

Post by yowlingcat » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

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…

I think I almost completely disagree with you. The product of MongoDB itself offered less than zero added value when it first launched through a lack of data integrity. The $300MM put into it was put into marketing. Mongo tried to squeeze Amazon and users, which is actually great. They are trying to walk the walk now, and what they're going to realize is that they can't. Amazon will out-execute them and hopefully put DocumentDB on stronger foundations than MongoDB's original creators ever could.

Judging on your other comments, it doesn't look like you're familiar with MongoDB's historical shoddiness. I don't agree with you on practice in this case or any case. If MongoDB's company can't out-execute, then they should have never made their product open source to begin with (and in that case it probably would never have gotten as popular as it did). That's the bargain you have to make to try and monetize open source software -- you don't just get a business for free.

But beyond that, I don't agree with you on principle in this case, because I have nothing but disdain and scorn for MongoDB. Both MySQL and Postgres have fine support for unstructured data now, and provide the entire relational toolchest as well. That's not even getting into other multi-paradigm databases like CockroachDB or ArangoDB. I struggle to think of a use case that it is more appropriate for than another option; and indeed, every time I have had to deal with it in production, I have never thought that it was anything but a poor decision.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#202

Post by _asummers » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:02 PM UTC

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…

> Is it because of API compatibility? But the notion that one cannot reimplement a public API for the sake of compatibility is in and of itself extremely hostile to the F/OSS ecosystem, given how many products in it are reimplementations of proprietary APIs.

Completely agree with your conclusion, but is this not exactly what happened in Oracle v. Google?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#203

Post by toyg » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:06 PM UTC

geezerjay wrote: post #148

mcv wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they have money and don't use it to support the community. Nobody is saying it explicitly, but of course we want small indie people to be able to use stuff for free while rich corporations foot the bill. But it's hard to codify that in a way that doesn't explicitly so, and it's hard to enforce a rule where something is free only if you're small or poor, but it costs money if you're big and rich. And to see th…

> Because they have money Seriously?

You forgot "and don't use it to support the community". It's not compensation, it's help for the community that made the profit possible, so that it can grow further.

There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. When the law fails to produce the outcomes it was designed for, there is a problem.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#204

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:07 PM UTC

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #158

cryptonector wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the approvals issue in all cases where the project clearly is unrelated to the employer's business, then what's the problem? To some degree review of external work is just the sort of thing a corporate legal department is going to push for, and it's not exactly unreasonable provided that approvals issue except where there is clearly a conflict.

The problem is that you need permission. Whether the approval is usually given is irrelevant, what matters is whether they have the option to refuse. Think about it like this: What would be the problem with the employment contract saying that salary can be decided by the company at will if they usually paid a certain acceptable sum every month?

I tried to distinguish "shall issue" from "may issue". A "you must let us know [so we can possibly refuse]" policy and a "you must ask permission [that will issue if there is no conflict]" policy are indistinguishable. A "you must ask permission and we reserve the right to say no no matter what" policy is terrible, and I'd not work under such a policy.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#205

Post by JBerlinsky » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #186

jhanschoo wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quote tickles me because in earlier days MongoDB's choice of defaults gave it a reputation as a poor imitation of a reliable document store.

One of my favorite tweets of all time - Hey Mongo I just met you And this is craaazy but here's my data so store it maybe? unfortunately, I can't find the tweet.

https://www.informationweek.com/database/the-man-who-torture..., perhaps?

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#206

Post by thomascgalvin » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

_asummers wrote: post #202

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…

> Is it because of API compatibility? But the notion that one cannot reimplement a public API for the sake of compatibility is in and of itself extremely hostile to the F/OSS ecosystem, given how many products in it are reimplementations of proprietary APIs. Completely agree with your conclusion, but is this not exactly what happened in Oracle v. Google?

Unless I missed something in the appeals, the result of Oracle v Google was that APIs are copyrightable, but that an implementation of that API for compatibility purposes is fair use.

So Oracle "owns" the Java API, but Google was allowed to clone that API to make Dvalik work with Java source code.

The same should be true of MongoDB's API. MongoDB Inc owns the copyright, but if someone wants to make a compatible API, they should be covered under fair use.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#207

Post by rectang » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:17 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #19

hedora wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is the law you're referring to?

CA Labor Code 2870.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#208

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:18 PM UTC

thomascgalvin wrote: post #206

_asummers wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it because of API compatibility? But the notion that one cannot reimplement a public API for the sake of compatibility is in and of itself extremely hostile to the F/OSS ecosystem, given how many products in it are reimplementations of proprietary APIs. Completely agree with your conclusion, but is this not exactly what happened in Oracle v. Google?

Unless I missed something in the appeals, the result of Oracle v Google was that APIs are copyrightable, but that an implementation of that API for compatibility purposes is fair use. So Oracle "owns" the Java API, but Google was allowed to clone that API to make Dvalik work with Java source code. The same should be true of MongoDB's API. MongoDB Inc owns the copyright, but if someone wants to make a compatible API,…

> Unless I missed something in the appeals, the result of Oracle v Google was that APIs are copyrightable, but that an implementation of that API for compatibility purposes is fair use.

The result (so far) of Oracle v. Google is that Googler use was not fair use as a matter of law; that, however, was the result of an interlocutory appeal to the CAFC, and we still have further action at the district court for a judgement, and probably at least one more appeal up the chain, potentially the whole way to the Supreme Court, before we know the final outcome.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#209

Post by rjf72 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #137

geezerjay wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it didn’t protect them from rich freeloaders. You offer a free software package to the world, so that anyone can use it as they see fit. Some guy uses your software package. How exactly has that guy became a freeloader in this story?

Because they have money and don't use it to support the community. Nobody is saying it explicitly, but of course we want small indie people to be able to use stuff for free while rich corporations foot the bill. But it's hard to codify that in a way that doesn't explicitly so, and it's hard to enforce a rule where something is free only if you're small or poor, but it costs money if you're big and rich. And to see th…

It's not at all hard to have a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. This is an extremely typical model for many products today whose licenses you could use as inspiration. See for instance things like Microsoft's Visual Studio. And the nice thing is that contract law is really quite powerful and very much on your side when it comes to enforcement. You don't need Microsoft's legal department to enforce your rights.

In my opinion I feel like the real issue is that many in the open source community want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to put ideas out there ostensibly for free and be part of the social communal movement, but when those ideas are actually used to generate value - they want to see the checks roll in. That's just not how it works. Look at products that are funded by donations. There are some exceptions, but the general rule is that they end up grossly underfunded and have to be more and more aggressive with requests for donations just to stay afloat. If people want payment, then demand payment. If you want to give away something for free, don't ever expect to get paid for it.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#210

Post by mcv » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 2:30 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #203

geezerjay wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because they have money Seriously?

You forgot "and don't use it to support the community". It's not compensation, it's help for the community that made the profit possible, so that it can grow further. There is the law, and there is the spirit of the law. When the law fails to produce the outcomes it was designed for, there is a problem.

Exactly. Things would look a lot different if Amazon was an active contributor of improvements to MongoDB. Plenty of companies are actively involved in the open source projects they use. It often makes a lot of business sense too: it helps the project develop in the direction they need, and by sharing their changes in that direction, they ensure that there's a community that supports the features they need, and from which they can hire experienced developers if they need to.

It makes a lot of sense, especially for smaller companies. But Amazon in this case doesn't use MongoDB for something they need, they just want to make it available to their customers. They have no opinion on what their customers need from MongoDB, so they're happy to just tag along for free.