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

241–250 of 297 posts

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#241

Post by nickpsecurity »

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…

"So, MongoDB got exactly what they asked for. It's just that, when they forced Amazon to make a choice, they didn't expect one of the options they gave them to be viable. They were wrong."

You're just talking narrowly about Amazon in this comment. What you said makes more sense if you broaden it to commercial users. They might have known FAANG companies, esp Amazon, would just ditch their software if they switched licenses. They might be targeting the companies that can't or won't build a MongoDB knockoff. The companies that will actually pay for their product. That's a huge market.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#242

Post by pessimizer »

cmsj wrote: post #153
klez wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep seeing this sentence (or variations thereof) on every thread about this topic. It sounds weird to me that people think a foundation created by Perens and Raymond (et al.), the people who defined Open Source, and wrote the Open Source Definition is not the defining authority on what open source is. What gives?

I think the idea there is that one body shouldn't have a proprietary lock on what counts as Open Source and what doesn't. OSI/OSD as the loudest voices of what is OSS, is helpful, but they shouldn't be the only voices. (As much as I get annoyed by things claiming to be open source, that really aren't proper open source, I have to accept that this is a movement brought about by a rag-tag bunch of hackers who don't muc…

It was a movement brought by an organized group of professionals who thought that the viral nature of the GPL kept business from taking advantage of the new commons. They created an organization to monitor use of the new term "Open Source," which would be a superset of the GPL, without the onerous-to-business requirement of sharing your changes.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#243

Post by hodgesrm »

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.

VMware requires approvals even for own-time projects. They don't put up artificial barriers in my experience; there's a very simple process for declaring outside projects and approval is quick as long as it's not viewed as competitive. I thought their approach seemed reasonable for a big company with a large IP portfolio.

It was not always this way--VMware has become much more open source friendly over the last few years.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#244

Post by helen___keller »

toyg wrote: post #235
helen___keller wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, the FSF does not agree with your distinction. The FSF only endorses free software, which means free for all users, commercial or noncommercial ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html ): >Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past we subdivided nonfree software into “semifree software”, which could be modified and redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary…

The FSF doesn't have a monopoly on the sentiment of open-source communities. Their principles were developed in a very different scenario, which is the point of my comment.

I just meant specifically for your call to action

> Maybe it's time for interested companies and expert stakeholders (FSF etc)

That the FSF likely would have no interest in participating in such an activity since it would betray their core principles (regardless of whether you or i feel that this principle is sound)

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#245

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

detaro wrote: post #240
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #233

>a hosted drop-in replacement for MongoDB that doesn’t use any MongoDB code Is there any evidence for this? I assumed they forked the last Apache 2.0 version of Mongo.

Mongo was AGPL, not Apache 2. It seems unlikely Amazon was willing to integrate an AGPL code into AWS.

My bad, thanks for clarifying.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#246

Post by kemitchell »

bradrydzewski wrote: post #44

mongodb announced the Server Side Public License change less than 12 weeks ago. When you account for end of year and holidays, building a new product line and rolling it out in such a short period of time seems unlikely. I would guess this has been in the works for a while (although admittedly I could be overestimating engineering effort and underestimating amazon engineering talent).

I was told on Twitter that the DocumentDB project is over two years old at Amazon. Mongo 3.6, the version whose API they claim to clone, came out about 15 months ago.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#247

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

cryptonector wrote: post #204
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the point is that it's not a question of probabilities, but of whether they are contractually obligated to issue approval unless specific conditions are met, so an implicit "[that will issue if there is no conflict]" is not acceptable IMO. There have to be specific rules for when they may refuse approval, so you can ask an independent judge to make a decision if you think the employer is partial in its decision.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#248

Post by talkingtab »

The most important issue to me is that Amazon benefits from open source not only without supporting it, but by threatening it. While we can argue whether it is MongoDb or not and other issues, it is clear that Amazon benefits. Otherwise why not simply invent their own API? They have the benefit of a well thought out system, of a large pool of people who know and can use MongoDB. Can they afford to support MongoDB? If not perhaps they should just 'fess up.

The open source system is great. Many individuals create the content and share it. There has been a great tolerance for companies like Amazon that exploit - not use but exploit - this community. While I don't have enough experience to know if MongoDB's response was a good one, I do think it is time for the community at large to begin a continuing discussion of what to do when large companies like Amazon are bad citizens.

Open source thrives on being ... well open, and it is important to retain that openness within the community.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#249

Post by kemitchell »

hannob wrote: post #160
holografix wrote: post #130

Is there a license category that says something like: "Anyone can use our tech to build stuff with for free however you may not re-sell our tech wrapped in maintenance or hosting services"? If you're a small open source company with a services business model, how do you stop someone like AWS forking your code, making a few changes they don't share with you and basically becoming the de-facto supplier of maintenance a…

> Is there a license category that says something like: "Anyone can use our tech to build stuff with for free however you may not re-sell our tech wrapped in maintenance or hosting services"? Yes, there is. It's what MongoDB did. It's not Open Source. > If you're a small open source company with a services business model, how do you stop someone like AWS forking your code, making a few changes they don't share with y…

> It’s what MongoDB did.

That’s incorrect. MongoDB’s Server Side Public License differs from Commons Clause and some of the “community” licenses from other database companies we’ve seen. The latter prohibit hosting programs as a service for others. SSPL explicitly permits that, but triggers copyleft, so the service rigging code must be released under the same terms.

Re: AWS gives open source the middle finger?

#250

Post by [deleted] »

chooseaname wrote: post #219
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.

It's entirely possible that the big company's interests could encroach upon my open source project, too. Why do they get a pass?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN