[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.