[MattGaiser]

> Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost.

I don't get the objection to this one. Isn't the point of open source to let the best vendor win?

Too many companies fail to realize that you must relentlessly wage war on cost to survive.

[Barrin92]

Open-source software has large positive externalities and if those are being captured by private entities then this will pretty much lead to a demise of open source software, or open-source software will slowly but surely being turned into software that is more and more incompatible and de-facto in-house software.

This is already happening. A lot of projects that are nominally open source are more and more influenced by the decisions of particular companies which erodes its purpose.

[baddox]

> A lot of projects that are nominally open source are more and more influenced by the decisions of particular companies which erodes its purpose.

I might be ignorant here, but isn’t it the “open source companies” that are actively doing this, rather than Amazon? It seems to me that these companies that represent an open source project are realizing that you don’t get it both ways: it turns out that releasing open source software means that the source code is open, which means that you don’t get automatic business just because the name of your company is the same as the name of the open source project.

[Grimm1]

They do it at no benefit to the OSS providers, that's the issue.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Why do they need to benefit the OSS provider? The license doesn't contain anything suggesting otherwise.

If authors want credit and money, the license needs to state as much. You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.

[Signez]

> You can't publish something saying "do whatever you want" and then complain that people aren't being fair to you.

Well… you can complain. You just can't sue them. But the complaint would still be valid.

You can act like a jerk and follow all the laws at the same time, it's just that the consequences for you won't be identical.

[sukilot]

Doing exactly as you are told by the copyright holder isn't being a jerk.

[Sean-Der]

Do you believe that authoritarian measures is the only thing that makes people do the just thing?

I am sure some people don't steal/murder because of laws, but I optimistically think the majority don't because they don't wish to hurt others.

[typomatic]

My parents asked me for some money the other day, but I told them to pound sand--if they wanted my help they should have made me sign something before they gave me all that free room and board. Suckers!

[tathougies]

Legally, yes, that is how it should be. even if worthy of criticism socially.

[Grimm1]

1 point by Grimm1 8 minutes ago | edit | delete [–]

The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses. The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.

Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]

It was never intended as a free for all.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about

[baddox]

> The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS.

You mean...a hosting company? I find it hard to believe that the open source movement was blindsided by the realization that there are companies that sell hosting services and that somehow this destroys the viability of their movement.

[MattGaiser]

But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.

[Sean-Der]

Open Source isn't just one mindset. This isn't exhaustive, but the ones I encounter the most.

* You have people that are ideologically driven (FSF)

* You have companies that Open Source as a weapon [0] (Chromium)

* You have projects that are very pragmatic. They believe it is the path to technical excellence.

* You have individuals do it for their resume

* You have individuals that do it just for fun :)

[0] https://www.gwern.net/Complement#open-source-as-a-strategic-...

[Grimm1]

The licenses weren't conceived of with the thought of something like AWS. Now that we're in the midst of things that's changing but what is an officially supported open source license [0] is too slow so you can't use the OSS label if you've you're not using the approved licenses. Both Mongo and Elasticsearch have changed their licenses to prevent cloud players from taking advantage of their work and companies like Gitlab make a clear distinction between their FOSS parts and what they make money on by using two different licenses.

The issues are only a little over a half decade old now the OSS players are starting to figure it out.

Open source just doesn't mean anyone can use it, there's a definition to adhere to and and org managing that definition. [1]

It was never intended as a free for all.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses [1] https://opensource.org/about

[searchableguy]

Legality doesn't always cover everything because that would result in a lot of problems. People operate on the spirit of the law, not the actual words or at least they are supposed to.

There is an expectation of contribution back.

[sukilot]

The spirit of open source is to protect the users, not benefit the authors.

[ric2b]

With GPL yes, with MIT no.