221–230 of 257 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emulating a propietary API would open up the door to litigation with uncertain outcome, generating distrust and bad press for Amazon. So not the same.
The original PC BIOS was also proprietary. Google did the same thing with Java. It’s up in the air how that will turn out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Emulating a propietary API would open up the door to litigation with uncertain outcome, generating distrust and bad press for Amazon. So not the same.
The original PC BIOS was also proprietary. Google did the same thing with Java. It’s up in the air how that will turn out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it was proprietary it would not be free - why should they pay then and not now? I am arguing that they would not, just like they don't now - there is no difference. The problem is with selling software - not with Open Source, if it was entirely Open Source - then they would not have to pay and they would use it.
What? If it's proprietary or closed source then the clouds have pay for to legally offer it to their customers. They can't just steal it without paying. This is extremely common. How do you think Windows, SQL Server, Oracle, Redhat Linux, Spark Enterprise, Cloudera/Hortonworks, and lots of other products are offered by the clouds? If there's enough demand for proprietary software then the clouds will do a licensing d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has already been settled in the courts: APIs are not subject to copyright and may be freely reverse engineered, provided the usual cleanroom methods are followed.
After the Google vs Oracle case i thought the courts decided the opposite of what you are saying: APIs are copyrightable and Google will have to pay aot of money for using them in Android.
Are you posting from the future? Because it isn't after that case yet; Google plans to appeal (given that they filed for an extension to the 25th of this month) the latest Federal Circuit decision to the US Supreme Court and, if that doesn't succeed and end the case in Google’s favor, the next step would be a third trial in the District Court, followed—however that turns out—by another appeal by one side or the other to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, possibly another petition for en banc rehearing after that appeal, and potentially another appeal to the Supreme Court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So every discussion involving relativity has to mention Einstein even when it's not germane?
Everyone keeps linking to the Gwem.net website instead of using the primary source. If Albert Einstein had a blog post about relativity, I would rather read that than someone’s interpretation....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? If it's proprietary or closed source then the clouds have pay for to legally offer it to their customers. They can't just steal it without paying. This is extremely common. How do you think Windows, SQL Server, Oracle, Redhat Linux, Spark Enterprise, Cloudera/Hortonworks, and lots of other products are offered by the clouds? If there's enough demand for proprietary software then the clouds will do a licensing d…
If it is proprietary they don't have to pay - they can always write their own - just like it happend in this case. If it is economic to write their own now - it would also be economic to write their own when Mongo was entirely proprietary. There is no economic difference in these two situations. But maybe you believe that it was not economy that dictated the rewrite - but rather it was a kind of tantrum - "others can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it is proprietary they don't have to pay - they can always write their own - just like it happend in this case. If it is economic to write their own now - it would also be economic to write their own when Mongo was entirely proprietary. There is no economic difference in these two situations. But maybe you believe that it was not economy that dictated the rewrite - but rather it was a kind of tantrum - "others can…
If that was feasible then they would already have SQL Server and Oracle APIs offered using their own tech instead of buying other vendors. Aurora MySQL and PostgreSQL still uses the open-source code layer on the top and just switches out the storage engines, and it's most likely the same here by using parts of actual MongoDB with a different storage engine.
1. https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/mongodb-now-released-under...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open source that you call "isn't free as in speech" is actually Free Software. You are able to develop with it in whatever way you want. The requirement is that whatever you develop is also Free Software and is distributed whenever it is used. This is what Stallman has in mind when he talks about free software. Your freedom to develop above free software developed by others cannot come at the cost of others' free…
This distinction seems highly misleading. Free is not free if it comes with a litany of restrictions. Licensing concerns pretty much blacklist a swath of open source software for actual use in a business context. Sure, many companies are willing to open source their developer friendly projects. Microsoft with VSCode is a great example. Same with Atlassian's contributions to complex open source UI components. Frankly,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>* like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement* Unless you use AGPL where the trigger for releasing your modifications is making the change available by any means (direct or otherwise) rather than with the standard GPL where the trigger is distribution of outputs compiled from the modified version.
MongoDB did use the AGPL and still had issues with companies trying to argue they didn't need to release their changes. So they switched to their own license which was even more explicit on the matter.