[sslayer]

I think the legal aspect of the licensing determines what is "right", otherwise the definition of "right" can be interpreted different ways. Don't be fooled, both parties entered into a contract. One when they published the software, and one when they used the software. Any expectations outside of that are left undocumented.

[cacois]

Even agreed-upon contracts can be predatory. Maybe there should be a license that says "free and clear for everyone but trillion-dollar companies, because they should really compensate developers for value".

I personally think it would be a great look for Amazon if they made it a policy to compensate developers from whom they derive significant economic value. Because they can, and because the developers deserve it.

[barumi]

If developers expected to get compensated for the work they explicitly and voluntarily released for anyone and everyone in the world for absolutely free, wouldn't they have released it under different terms? I mean, it sounds awfully dishonest to do a 180 on the expectations once a user with a deep enough wallet happens to be singled out.

[sillysaurusx]

It doesn’t seem dishonest. Companies do it (market segmentation).

[barumi]

No, they really don't. You don't see companies giving away their products under a permissive license to, afterwards, stating that we should not pay attention to the license because they now want a chunk of our paycheck. That would be as dishonest as it gets, and the dishonesty in that doesn't change if we replace a company with a single-person company.

[ncmncm]

A license is not a contract. Using and distributing Free Software is not entering into a contract.

You certainly can have a contract around a license, but that is a whole other topic.

[bryal]

It is in France, and possibly other places as well.

[mosselman]

“Right” can always be interpreted in many ways. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is when “right” is just one thing when we need to worry.