Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#91

Post by progmetaldev »

inetknght wrote: post #81
overfeed wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've had the same discussion for years now on HN. It is not unethical to decide to stop supporting something especially if you played by all the rules the entire time. What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism. Companies are never honest about how they intend to use CLAs and pretend its for the furtherance of open source…

> What's unethical is taking yhe fruits of other people's work private: ranging from code contributions, through bug reports and evangelism. First, if it's open source, then the contributions are still there for everyone to use. Second, if the license allows it, then the license allows it. Now, if the contributions were made with a contribution license to prevent it, you've got a solid argument. Otherwise you're appl…

I agree, along with the child comment. I think the issue is that if there wasn't some kind of ability to "rug pull," that we would see far fewer open source contributions in the first place.

I hate that a company can take a fully open-source project, and then turn it into a commercial offering, dropping support for the project's open source model. I am fine with a project's maintainers stopping support for a project because they have other things to deal with, or just are burnt out. I understand that both of these things are allowed under the specific license you choose, and still believe you should have the freedom to do what was done here (although not agreeing with the idea of what was done, I still think it should be allowed). If you want to guarantee your code is allowed to live on as fully open, you pick that license. If you don't, but want to contribute as a means to selling your talent, I still think the world would have far less software if this was discouraged. The source is still legal from before the license was changed, and I feel that even if the project doesn't get forked, it is still there for others to learn from.

With that said I'm wondering if there has ever been a legal case where source was previously fully open source, then became closed source, and someone was taken to court over using portions of the code that was previously open. It seems like it would be cut and dry about the case being thrown out, but what if the code was referenced, and then rewritten? What if there was code in the open source version that obviously needed to be rewritten, but the authors closed the source, and then someone did the obvious rewrite? This is more of a thought experiment than anything, but I wonder if there's any precedent for this, or if you'd just have to put up the money for attorneys to prove that it was an obvious change?

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#92

Post by switchbak »

kadoban wrote: post #5
matt_callmann wrote: post #4

What are the alternatives? I primarily used it for S3 and SQS emulation.

I haven't evaluated it deeply yet, but I saw https://github.com/hectorvent/floci

In my first few hours: - it failed with Pekko due to not returning version information properly - it doesn't support range requests in S3 (!)

This project is 8 days old. It did support most of my workflow, but ... I don't get the warmest of fuzzies relying on something so brand new. But here we are in the age of vibe coded AI replacements, what a time to be alive.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#93

Post by andreareina »

skeledrew wrote: post #48
hungryhobbit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up ... but stop sharing ... and you're upset?!? They did everything properly by the rules of OSS, decided it wasn't in their best interest to keep doing OSS, and left all their code available, as required by OSS. They were a textbook good participant. Meanwhile, 99% of companies never open source anything: why…

> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".

The GPL protects against this.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#94

Post by raw_anon_1111 »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #89
raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been using a modified version of this for 8 years. I didn’t write it https://github.com/1Strategy/fargate-cloudformation-example/... It’s never taken 30 minutes to pass in a new parameter value for the Docker container. Also as far as rollbacks just use —disable-rollbacks. The only time I’ve had CFT get stuck is using custom resources when I didn’t have proper error handling and I didn’t send the failure signa…

Failed deployments without rollbacks still leave you in a unusable state and manual rollbacks of a failed service deployment can take as long to cleanup as the failed rollback you just disabled especially when dealing with persistent resources. That linked fargate stack is fairly bare bones in comparison to what we run in ECS and we maintain our own AMIs that are built nightly for security updates and ECR resources f…

Why are you running your own AMIs for ECS instead of just using Fargate?

The build pipeline I used in CodeBuild was build the Docker container and a sidecar Nginx container.

The parameter you pass in is the new Docker container you just built.

But how would LocalStack help?

You also don’t have massive CDK apps. The Docker images are going to change much more frequently than your persistent layer. You’re not going to be bringing up and down your VPCs, database clusters etc.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#95

Post by progmetaldev »

skeledrew wrote: post #50
inetknght wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance You might want to get your arguments in order. In one sentence you're calling OSS rugpulls a problem, and then in another you're claiming that proprietary products behave more ethically. So which is it? Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? I see having source code, even for an old/unmaintained…

It's a matter of honesty and trust. A company that has never provided source code is more honest and trustworthy than one that provides source code, extracts community labor (by accepting issues and/or PRs) and then makes off with said labor (even if they left a frozen version available) at a future point.

Does the amount of labor that was provided by a community make a difference? What if it was minimal? Where do you draw the line (any piece of code accepted, or a "large portion" of code)?

I didn't downvote you, but I suspect combining PRs with issues is what most people have an issue with. Issues obviously help to improve software, but only through the fixing or writing of new code.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I also think that if it were a requirement to never close source your project after it's already been open sourced, we'd have far fewer projects available that are open source. Often a project is created on a company's dime, and open source, to draw attention to the developer skills and ability to solve a problem. If the code was legally disallowed to be close sourced in the future, we might see far less code available universally. A working repository of code is potentially a reference for another developer to learn something new. I don't have any examples, but I know for a fact that I've read code that had been open source, and later close sourced, and learned something from the open source version (even if it was out of date for the latest libraries/platform).

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#96

Post by vasco »

inglor wrote: post #32

First minio and then localstack, as an open source maintainer I find that abandoning their community is bad faith. I totally get wanting to monetize but removing the free product entirely feels like such a betrayel. Luckily, I've been vibing with Devin since this started having it build a cleanbox emulator on top of real s3 tuned for my specific use case. It's a lot less general but it's much faster and easy to add t…

Yeah these moves will gain them a year or so but all these companies built on a "takes time to implement library" are all dead in the water. Localstack has nothing fancy, it just takes time to build. And that moat is gone, it's maybe 4 weekends of token quotas I wouldn't use anyway.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#98

Post by pocksuppet »

jrflowers wrote: post #52
imiric wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might want to think about my argument a bit more. > Is it less-ethical to have provided software as open source, and then later become a proprietary product? Why? Because usually these companies use OSS as a marketing gimmick, not because they believe in it, or want to contribute to a public good. So, yes, this dishonesty is user hostile, and some companies with proprietary products do have more respect for their…

It seems like you’re trying to build a system of ethics around being annoyed by OSS maintainers not working for free in perpetuity. Having access to Apache licensed code that you can build off of is better than never having access to any code at all. Anything else about values or respect has to be inferred or imagined and has no bearing on the software itself. Edit: Like who cares if they “wanted” to contribute to th…

The ethical problem is the bait-and-switch. A project that begins open and remains open is no problem; a project that begins closed and remains closed is no problem (ethically); a project that begins closed and becomes open is no ethical problem either. But a project that begins open, advertises their openness to the world, uses their openness to attract lots of community interest and then suddenly becomes closed is pulling a bait-and-switch, or rugpull.

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#99

Post by pocksuppet »

mgulick wrote: post #60
luipugs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you arguing that copyleft is not open source?

From https://opensource.org/osd : > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. A non-commercial clause is a discrimination against a field of endeavor and thus non-open-source. The license cann…

https://opensource.org/sponsors

Re: Local Stack Archived their GitHub repo and requires an account to run

#100

Post by WatchDog »

iaaan wrote: post #6

I evangelized localstack at my company a while back, but as we integrated it deeper into our CI test runs we started running into more and more things they don't support, and it feels impossible to get any attention from their support/devs despite being paying customers. Their Cloud Pod and ephemeral instance features in particular feel pretty half-baked and not very useful at the moment. Fun tangent: it's pretty eas…

I used some small parts of localstack a long time back for some integration tests. I haven't kept up with what it does.

Looking at their pricing tiers, it seems that their paid product now a cloud based service, or partly cloud based.

I don't really see why you would pay to use a cloud based AWS emulator, instead of just using a real AWS account.

Post reply on HN