81–90 of 239 posts
That's a very wide claim. Amazon may not be the most valued type of open source user, but they are on par with most open source infrastructure historically. It's as if they are trying to say that only the creators of an open source project can build a SaaS for it. Tell that to mySQL, Postgres, redis, everything apache (Hadoop, Cassandra(which is based on amazon's DynamoDB whitepaper), Kafka, Zookeeper), every program…
I don't understand this sentiment. The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return. If you don't want others to have that right, then choose a different license. But don't grant the right and then complain when people exercise it.
For example, is it that far fetched that at some point someone will come up with the abstract argument that your blogging service is really actually just a fancy interface to your MongoDB instance -- and thus you should pay up since you are a MongoDB provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Amazon shouldn't be allowed to create any products, or must ignore the data it needs to plan logistics?
Amazon should ignore other people data. Amazon has plenty of its data from its own products, no need to create false dichotomies.
Isn't this what GPLv3 is suppose to prevent ? Commercial Entities seems to hate it, there must be a reason, probably because they cannot 'cheat' with it.
Isn't this what GPLv3 is suppose to prevent ? Commercial Entities seems to hate it, there must be a reason, probably because they cannot 'cheat' with it.
IANAL but as I understand it, GPLv3 prevents "tivoization" and AGPLv3 prevents running modified services without releasing the source code. Corporations particularly hate AGPLv3.
I don't understand this sentiment. The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return. If you don't want others to have that right, then choose a different license. But don't grant the right and then complain when people exercise it.
The article title is actually "Lack of leadership in open source results in source-available licenses", OP was editorializing. In fact, your sentiment is explicitly stated in the article: > Amazon’s behavior toward open source is self-interested and rational. Amazon is playing by the rules of what software licenses allow.
I don't understand this sentiment. The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return. If you don't want others to have that right, then choose a different license. But don't grant the right and then complain when people exercise it.
Right. I think it’s a bit rich of companies such as Elastic to extend existing open source projects, surf on the goodwill of open source, and then turn around and complain when other companies use elasticsearch as open source. The real issue with OS today is that it is too difficult to reward authors and contributors with actual cash money. Until this is fixed, “open source” is doomed to be a bunfight between well fu…
I think the problem with Elastic is they have lots of VC investment pushing for a big payout, so it’s not a “pay the hackers” it’s a “make a big payout for founders and investors.” Which I’m not against and think is cool, but I don’t really care about it that much.
I don't understand this sentiment. The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return. If you don't want others to have that right, then choose a different license. But don't grant the right and then complain when people exercise it.
Conversely the LGPL and family exists in some sense because the free software community tried to apply copyleft to project that can really only be successful with a permissive license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. If the only thing keeping customers on my platform is an incompatible API, what does that say about me as a vendor?
That you’re not going hungry while one of the most valuable companies in the world doesn’t extract value from your work.
I don't understand this sentiment. The whole point of choosing a permissive license is that you want others to have the right to profit off of your work and give you nothing in return. If you don't want others to have that right, then choose a different license. But don't grant the right and then complain when people exercise it.
The basic argument is that Amazon is Free Riding because they get massively more out of the resource than they put in, by virtue of their scale alone. The free-rider problem occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an underprovision of those goods or services. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem
It’s like complaining because Seattle sets up a free subway that supports infinite riders at $0 marginal cost and Amazon has all their employees ride it instead of making google buses.
There’s also an issue that Elastic’s district was actually worse than Amazon’s new distro due to license confusion.