AWS gives open source the middle finger?

Post by scarface74 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:07 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…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #214

rjf72 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

It's not unreasonable to wish for a middle ground where small actors don't have to pay and big actors do. > a license where something is free for noncommercial or limited commercial usage, and premium otherwise. That's basically what Mongo have switched to. Unfortunately, this broke other bits of community, because playing with licenses is actually not that easy. My point is that, maybe, we need a new license that ca…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

TheDong wrote: post #68

Bahamut wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Every company that is based on california, or that employs you in california, is better. No matter what the non-compete says, if you're in CA, you can use your own hardware and non-work time to develop anything that doesn't directly compete with your employer/dayjob and doesn't use trade secrets/IP from the company. Amazon though is mostly based in Washington, where no such law exists, so sweeping non-competes are le…

Post by BeetleB » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #16

spectre256 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I "accidentally" worked at amazon for a few weeks when a company I had just joined was acquired by them. I knew it was time to start looking when I was informed that I had to get prior permission to do ANY open source contributions even on my own hardware on my own time. That's just not feasible logistically and above and beyond the general "don't write open source that competes with us or on our our time/hardware wi…

Problem is, you could potentially encroach on a big company's interests without knowing so, i.e. they're working in [insert space] in secret, or create an ethical issue for the company. Truth is, excepting maybe Netflix, the rest of FAANG requires you to get approvals.

Post by web007 » Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 3:32 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.